Rel: 09/2 6/2014

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 O F ALA BAMA

SPECIAL TE RM, 2 014

_____ _____ _____ _____ 11309 46

_____ _____ _____ _____ Ex pa rte Mary JacqueBell PETIT ION FOR WR IT OFCERT IORAR I TO THE COURT OFCRIM INAL APPEALS

(In r e: Ma ry Be ll

v. Stateof Alabama) (Bald win C ircui t Cou rt, C C-12- 704; Courtof C rimin al Appeals , CR- 12-19 69)

MAIN, Just ice. WRIT DENIE D. N O OPI NION. Stuar t, Bolin , Parke r, Murd o c k , Shaw, Wise, and Bryan , JJ., concu r. Moore , C.J ., di ssent s.11309 46

MOORE , Chi ef Ju stice (dis senti ng). I respe ctful ly disse nt from the Court ’s decis ion to deny Mary Jacqu e Bell’ s petit ion for a writ of certi orari direc ted to th e Cou rt ofCrim inal Appea ls. I woul d gra nt he r pet ition to deter mine wheth er the trial court e r r e d by refus ing to instr uct the jury on an alter nativ e offen se to the ch a r g ed offen se offirs t-deg ree r obber y. The evide nce revea ls the follo wing facts . Nolan Boyin gton and W ade C oopertrie d to take moneyfromRyan Stok es ou tside Bell' s res idenc e. Du ring the e ncoun ter, Coope r poi nted a gun at St okes. Bell , who was away from the p remis es at the time,

was charg ed with compl icity in first -deg r e e robbe ry, an offen se that encompasse s certa in condu ct occur ring "i n t he

cours e of commi tting a theft ." 13A- 8-41( a), Ala. Code 1975, refer ring to 13 A-8-4 3(a), Ala. Code 1975 . Wit nesse s dis puted wheth er Bell was aware of t h e p r e s e n ce of the gun. Over the State 's objec tion, the trial court denie d the State 's reque st fo r a n instr uctio n on secon d-deg ree robbe ry as a lesse r offen se in clude d in the o ffens e of first -degr ee ro bbery . Bell was convi cted of compl icity in first -degr ee robbe ry and was sente nced to 20 years in priso n. The Court of Crimi nal

211309 46

Appea ls af firme d herconv ictio n, ho ldingthat Bell fail ed to prese rve for appea l the trial court 's refus al to instr uct the jury on secon d-deg ree robbe ry as a lesse r-inc luded offen se to first -degr ee ro bbery . I d isagr ee. Rule 21.3, A l a . R. Crim. P., requi res a party to objec t to the court 's failu re to give an instr uc t i o n in order to prese rve that issue for appea l and appl i e s t o "the party

r e q u estin g the charg e," Bullo ck v. State , 697 So. 2d 66, 67 ( A l a . C rim. App. 1997) . Rule 21.3 exist s "to ensur e tha t reque sted charg es are timel y prese nted ... and supp orted by suffi cient evide nce." Ex parte Hatfi eld, 37 So. 3d 733, 738 (Ala. 2009 ). The State , not Bell, reque sted the instr uctio n on secon ddegre e robbe ry and objec ted to the t rial court 's refus al to give the instr uctio n. In so doing , the State put the trial court on notic e that an instr uctio n on the lesse r-inc l uded offen se wa s app ropri ate. Addit ional obje ction by B ell t o the judge 's denia l of the State 's reque sted instr uctio n would have been futil e, an d "'[ t]he law d oes n ot re quire the doingof a futil e act .'" C raft v. St ate, 90 So . 3d 197, 204 ( Ala. Crim. App. 2011) (quot ing O hio v . Rob erts, 448 U.S. 56, 7 4 (19 80)).

311309 46

See also Ex parte L a P o inte, 926 So. 2d 1055, 1060 (Ala. 2 005)( holdi ng that the prese rvati on requi remen t does no t requi re "p roced ural circu ity") . The purp ose o f Rul e 21. 3 was achie ved w ithou t an objec tion from Bell to th e tri al co urt's refus al to char ge on the lesse r-inc ludedoffe nse. Bell was en t i tled to an instr uctio n on secon d-deg ree robbe ry becau se two parti cipan ts "acti vely prese nt" commi tted the offen se of robbe ry, see § 13A-8 -42(a ), Ala. Code 1975, and the testi mony as to wheth er Bell knew that a gun would be used in the robbe ry was dispu ted. In order for a defen dant charg ed with first -degr ee robbe ry to be entit led to an instr uctio n on

secon d-deg ree robbe ry, "ther e must be ev i d ence that the robbe ry was commi tted by two or more perso ns and that [the defen dant] did not h ave . .. kn owled ge th at an acco mplic e was going to [comm it the armed robbe ry]." Ex parte Hanna h, 527 So. 2d 675, 677 (Ala. 1988) (hol d ing that the petit ioner was not entit led to an instr uctio n on secon d-deg ree robbe ry becau se he knew that his codef endan t had a gun). See also Harri s v. State , 398 So. 2d 777, 779 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981) (hold ing that the appel la n t was not entit led to an instr uctio n on secon ddegre e rob bery becau se he knewthat his accomplice was armed

411309 46

with a club) . The dispu ted testi mony about Bell' s knowl edge of t h e prese nce of a gun durin g the robbe ry entit led her t o a

secon d-deg ree-r obber y ins truct ion. F i n a l l y, altho ugh Bell did not so argue , I belie ve tha t the trial court would have been corre ct in instr uctin g t he jury on at tempt ed ro bberyin t he fi rst o r sec ond d egree as a less e r-inc luded offen se. An incomplete theft by force could poten tiall y satis fy the eleme nts of eithe r an a t t empte d robb e r y , see 13A-4 -2(a) , Ala. Code 1975, or a compl eted robbe ry, see Ex parte Verzo ne, 868 So. 2d 399, 402 (Ala. 2003) (hold ing that the Code "does not requi re that a theft be

accomplish ed for the eleme nts of robbe ry to be estab lishe d"). 1 Howev er, neith er the robbe ry statu tes (§§ 13A-8 -40 th r o u gh -44, Ala. Code 1975) nor the attempt statu te (§ 13A-4 -2, Ala. Code 1975) conta ins langu age expre ssly abrog ating the offen se of attempted robbe ry, which is one class lower than compl eted robbe ry, s ee § 13A-4 -2(d) , Ala . Cod e 197 5.

This Court has concl uded that "our robbe ry statu tes now 1 defin e rob bery as in cludi ng wh at fo rmerl y wou ld ha ve be en an attempt to commi t robbe ry." Ex parte Curry , 471 So. 2 d 4 76, 478 (Ala. 1984) (emph asis added ). Howev er, the attempt statu te expre ssly provi des, witho ut excep tion, that attempted offen ses are one class lower than their compl eted count erpar ts. § 13A4-2(d ), Ala. Code 1975. I b e l i eve that this Court shoul d revis it it s con clusi on in Curr y. 511309 46

"[W]e must consi der the s t a t u te as a whole and must const ru e t h e statu te reaso nably so as to harmo nize the provi si o n s of the statu te." McRae v. Secur ity Pac. Hous. Servs ., Inc., 628 So. 2d 429, 432 (Ala. 1993) . The attempt statu te does not confl ict with the robbe ry statu tes becau se both attempted robbe ry and robbe ry can coexi st as sep a rate offen ses. There fore, I belie ve that the trial court could have instr ucted the jury on attempted robbe ry in the f i r s t or

secon d deg ree. 2 For t he fo regoi ng re asons , I r espec tfull y dis sent.

Bell could be convi cted of attempted robbe ry even if the 2 State fail ed to indi ct he r foratte mptedrobb ery. See 1 3A-1- 9(a)( 2), A la. C ode 1 975. 6