Windsor v. State
110 So. 3d 876
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Windsor was convicted of first-degree robbery and sentenced as a habitual felony offender to 120 years, with fines and restitution.
- On April 3, 2010, Windsor robbed a CVS in Dothan, demanding OxyContin while armed with a handgun and jumping the counter.
- The CVS value of OxyContin seized was $35,000–$40,000, with street value over $100,000; several employees identified Windsor.
- A 2008 Walgreens incident where Windsor jumped the counter and demanded OxyContin was introduced as prior bad-act evidence.
- CVS surveillance video and employee identifications, plus a Walgreens-related testimony, formed the core evidence of guilt.
- Windsor testified in his defense, admitting the Walgreens incident but denying CVS guilt; trial was before a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of collateral-bad-acts under Rule 404(b) | Windsor argues Walgreens testimony improper; prejudicial bad acts evidence should be excluded. | State asserts identity and motive exceptions render Walgreens evidence admissible and probative. | Admissible for identity and motive; error if any was harmless. |
| Limiting instruction for collateral evidence | Windsor contends jury should have been instructed to limit use of Walgreens evidence. | State contends substantial evidence of guilt otherwise supports the conviction. | Court erred in not giving a limiting instruction, but error was harmless beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Excessive-sentence preservation and review | Windsor argues sentence exceeds statutory range and/or was improperly preserved for appeal. | Lane supports 120-year sentence within range; not preserved for appellate review. | Not preserved for review; even if preserved, sentence within statutory range. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Loggins, 771 So.2d 1093 (Ala.2000) (admission of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (collateral-acts evidence admissibility standards)
- Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d 665 (Ala.Crim.App.1985) (identity and similarity standard for prior-crime evidence)
- Averette v. State, 469 So.2d 1371 (Ala.Crim.App.1985) (prejudice versus probative value in prior-bad-acts analysis)
- Ex parte Billups, 86 So.3d 1079 (Ala.2010) (requirement of limiting instruction for Rule 404(b) evidence)
- Lane v. State, 66 So.3d 824 (Ala.2010) (interpretation of HFOA sentencing range)
- Ex parte Cofer, 440 So.2d 1121 (Ala.1983) (context for admissibility and limiting instructions)