Title: Ex Parte Harris

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

387 So. 2d 868 (1980)
Ex parte James Otis HARRIS.
(In re James Otis Harris v. State of Alabama).
79-82.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 6, 1980.
*869 Frank S. Buck, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Thomas R. Allison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
ALMON, Justice.
Harris was convicted of illegally possessing drugs. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment in Harris v. State [Ms. Sept. 4, 1979] 387 So. 2d 865 (Ala.Cr. App. 1979). This Court granted certiorari to determine whether a certain statement by a person not in court was properly admitted into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. We have determined that the statement was improperly admitted and reverse the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals.
Police officers of the City of Birmingham obtained a search warrant from a City Judge to search the residence at 3813 Huntsville Road for drugs.
When the officers arrived at this address they found no one at home. They subsequently located Harris at a gas station some six blocks from the residence. Harris accompanied the officers to the residence where they gained entry. The search revealed illegal drugs and Harris was placed under arrest and given Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). After the warnings were given a woman came to the residence and asked what the police were doing at her nephew's home. One of the police officers testified as follows:
Q. Did you have an occasion to see anybody in the house when you first got there?
Q. Tell us what she said and what you said to her.
A. She wanted to know what we were doing in her nephew's home.
The main issue at trial was whether Harris owned or resided at this address. This was vital to the State's case in order to show constructive possession of the premises where the drugs were found. Thus, the admission of the statement cannot be said under any circumstances to be harmless. If *870 it was erroneously admitted then prejudicial error is present.
The State argues that the objection to this evidence was inadequate and, further, that the evidence was admissible under the "tacit admission rule." This rule of evidence is stated in Clark v. State, 240 Ala. 65, 197 So. 23 (1940), as follows:
240 Ala. 69, 197 So. 26-27.
The record does not show what Harris's response was to this statement, or whether it could be reasonably assumed that Harris heard the statement by the woman. The record does show that Harris was present, but does not elaborate on the circumstances. Even assuming that it could be argued that the record supports the conclusion that Harris failed to respond to the statement, thereby tacitly admitting the truth of it, we are convinced the hearsay statement was clearly inadmissible because of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), wherein the Supreme Court of the United States states that
96 S. Ct. 2244-45.
Under these circumstances we consider the objection by defense counsel to be sufficient to raise the issue.
The crux of our holding is simply that it is fundamentally unfair and in violation of due process of law to inform a person under arrest that he has a right to remain silent and then permit an inference of guilt from that silence.
The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, on rehearing with one judge concurring in the result, stated that
We are not completely sure just what this statement means. We would observe, however, that the Court of Criminal Appeals has "exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all misdemeanors, including the violation of town and city ordinances, habeas corpus and all felonies, including all post conviction writs in criminal cases." Code 1975 § 12-3-9. Under our appellate system criminal cases which are appealed reach that Court first. Indeed every Court in this State is obliged to apply the decisions of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the United States Constitution. The only exception which comes readily to mind is where this Court has previously interpreted a United States Supreme Court decision contrary to the interpretation the Court of Criminal Appeals has seen fit to give the decision.
The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals affirming Harris's conviction is hereby reversed and the cause is remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
All the Justices concur, except BLOODWORTH, J., who is not sitting.