Title: Ex parte William Darnell Kidd. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (In re: William Darnell Kidd v. State of Alabama)

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 09/07/2012
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2012
____________________
1111270
____________________
Ex parte William Darnell Kidd
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: William Darnell Kidd
v.
State of Alabama)
(Mobile Circuit Court, CC-10-315;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-10-1487)
PER CURIAM.
The petition for the writ of certiorari is denied.
In denying the petition for the writ of certiorari, this
Court does not wish to be understood as approving all the
1111270
2
language, reasons, or statements of law in the Court of
Criminal Appeals’ opinion.  Horsley v. Horsley, 291 Ala. 782,
280 So. 2d 155 (1973).
WRIT DENIED.
Malone, C.J., and Woodall, Bolin, and Shaw, JJ., concur.
Murdock, J., concurs specially.
Main, J., recuses himself.*
*Justice Main was a member of the Court of Criminal
Appeals when that court considered this case.
1111270
3
MURDOCK, Justice (concurring specially). 
The Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that William
Darnell Kidd did not preserve for appellate review his
contentions (a) that the trial court erred in failing to give
an adequate or proper jury instruction defining the phrase
"unlawful activity" as that term is used in § 13A-3-23(b),
Ala. Code 1975, and (b) that the prosecutor made improper,
prejudicial statements to the jury in regard to the same
"unlawful activity" issue.  Kidd v. State, [Ms. CR-10-1487,
April 27, 2012] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).  This
Court now denies certiorari review, but states that in doing
so we are not to be understood as agreeing with all the legal
analysis in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals.  I
write separately to express my reason for concurring in the
denial of certiorari review as well as my reason for not
wanting to be understood as agreeing with all the legal
analysis in the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion.
In the last paragraph of Part I and the last sentence of
Part II of its opinion, the Court of Criminal Appeals
announced certain conclusions as to the merits of Kidd's
argument regarding the meaning of the term "unlawful activity"
in § 13A-3-23(b).  Those passages appear to address a question
of first impression with respect to which the court below
1111270
4
offers a conclusion without the benefit of any analysis or
authority.  It can be argued that the quotation from the
commentary to § 13A-3-23(b) set out in the penultimate
paragraph of Part I of the Court of Criminal Appeals' opinion
comes closer to describing what the legislature intended by
the term "unlawful activity."  That is, it appears that a
reasonable argument can be made that the legislature intended
there to be a nexus between the "unlawful activity" -- here,
the mere possession of a gun -- and the need to act in
self-defense.  
Based on the foregoing, I do not wish to be understood as
agreeing with the conclusion stated by the Court of Criminal
Appeals as to the meaning of the term "unlawful activity" in
§ 13A-3-23(b) and its application to facts such as those
presented in this case.  That said, I concur in denying the
petition for the writ of certiorari because I agree with the
conclusion of the Court of Criminal Appeals that the two
issues described in the first paragraph of this writing were
not preserved for appellate review.