Case Title: Ex Parte Brown

Citation: 499 So. 2d 787

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1986-10-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
499 So. 2d 787 (1986)
Ex parte Roosevelt BROWN.
(Re Roosevelt Brown v. State of Alabama).
85-572.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 3, 1986.
W. Gregory Hughes, Mobile, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jean Alexandra Webb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
ADAMS, Justice.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether, as the defendant asserts, the Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment affirming the conviction, which was based solely on circumstantial evidence, is in conflict with Alabama case law.
The defendant was convicted of murdering Hilliard D. Smith. At trial, the State proved that Hilliard D. Smith was killed as a result of gunshot and stab wounds. Also, the State proved that the defendant was in possession of various items which had belonged to the victim, and that the defendant was staying a few blocks from where the victim's stolen car was recovered. This was, essentially, the sum total of evidence presented against the defendant.
Over 100 years ago in Ex Parte Acree, 63 Ala. 234 (1879), this Court discussed what was necessary in order to convict a person by the use of circumstantial evidence:
This is not an antiquated statement of the law, however, as it has been followed throughout the years by this Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. See Dolvin v. State, 391 So. 2d 133 (Ala.1980); Cumbo v. State, 368 So. 2d 871 (Ala.Crim.App.1979).
Thus, if the circumstances can be reconciled with the theory that someone else may have done the act, then the conviction is due to be reversed. We are of the opinion that, in the case before us, the circumstances are such that the act might very well have been done by someone other than the defendant. Therefore, the conviction must be reversed.
From the testimony of two of the officers who investigated the homicide, one could easily conclude that Horace "Peter Boy" Salter, and not the defendant, was the person who committed the murder in this case. Sergeant Williams testified as follows:
After Sergeant Williams testified, Officer Boone was called to the stand, and excerpts from his testimony appear below:
Based upon the foregoing, there was evidence that Horace Salter relayed certain facts to the police officers that were not common knowledge and that fit the fact pattern of the Smith murder. For example, Salter told the police that he shot and stabbed "a sissy"; that the knife he used he got from a drawer in the kitchen and the gun which he used fired bullets which were smaller than .38 caliber bullets. He gave the police directions to the victim's house, and told the police that he used a lubricant before he killed the "sissy," and a tube of lubricant was found in the victim's bedroom. Furthermore, he said that he took a typewriter from the victim's house, and he lived only a few blocks from where the victim's car was found. Thus, Salter admitted to police that he was involved in an assault with a knife and a gun, and the circumstances surrounding the assault he described were very similar to the circumstances surrounding the Smith homicide.
The State argues that there was enough evidence produced to link the defendant to the crime. Other than what we have already mentioned, the State introduced a statement of Johnny Brown, the defendant's brother, in which he told the police that the defendant admitted having shot and stabbed the victim. At trial, however, *791 Johnny Brown denied that the defendant told him anything about the crime, and stated that he was coerced into making the statement through threats of the interrogating officers, and that they had told him the facts which he used in his statement.
Concerning the out-of-court statement of Johnny Brown, first, the law in Alabama is clear that this statement may not be used as substantive evidence against the defendant. According to C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, 159.02(1) (3d ed. 1977):
See also Randolph v. State, 331 So. 2d 766 (Ala.Crim.App.1976). Thus, Johnny Brown's statement to police could have been used only to discredit his testimony at trial. Second, even if the statement could have been used against the defendant, the facts concerning the murder conveyed in the statement of Johnny Brown fall woefully short of the detail which was given by Salter. Furthermore, most or all of the facts contained in Johnny Brown's statement appeared in the newspaper and were thus common knowledge in the community and, therefore, were not highly probative of anything.
The State also argues that Salter gave a second statement to police in which he never admitted to harming anyone. Even so, it does not detract from the fact that the event described by Salter originally was almost identical to the circumstances of the Smith homicide.[1] In the instant case, we are of the opinion that the State did not meet its burden of excluding every reasonable hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and the cause is remanded to that court for it to enter a judgment consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., not sitting.
[1]  We do not have before us any question as to why the defendant, rather than Horace Salter, was chosen as the focal point of this investigation.