Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/11pdf/10-9646.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  567 U. S. ____ (2012) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

played drinking games.  When Cannon passed out, Miller 
stole  his  wallet,  splitting  about  $300  with  Smith.    Miller 
then  tried  to  put  the  wallet  back  in  Cannon’s  pocket,  but 
Cannon  awoke  and  grabbed  Miller  by  the  throat.  Smith 
hit Cannon with a nearby baseball bat, and once released, 
Miller grabbed the bat and repeatedly struck Cannon with 
it.  Miller  placed  a  sheet  over  Cannon’s  head,  told  him 
“ ‘I am God, I’ve come to take your life,’ ” and delivered one 
more blow.  Miller v. State, 63 So. 3d 676, 689 (Ala. Crim. 
App. 2010).  The boys then retreated to Miller’s trailer, but 
soon decided to return to Cannon’s to cover up evidence of
their crime.  Once there, they lit two fires.  Cannon even-
tually  died  from  his  injuries  and  smoke  inhalation.    See 
id., at 683–685, 689. 

Alabama law required that Miller initially be charged as
a  juvenile,  but  allowed  the  District  Attorney  to  seek  re-
moval of the case to adult court.  See Ala. Code §12–15–34 
(1977).  The  D. A.  did  so,  and  the  juvenile  court  agreed 
to  the  transfer  after  a  hearing.    Citing  the  nature  of  the 
crime,  Miller’s  “mental  maturity,”  and  his  prior  juvenile
offenses  (truancy  and  “criminal  mischief”),  the  Alabama
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.  E. J. M. v. State, No. 
CR–03–0915, pp. 5–7 (Aug. 27, 2004) (unpublished memo-
randum).3    The  State  accordingly  charged  Miller  as  an 
adult with murder in the course of arson.  That crime (like
capital  murder  in  Arkansas)  carries  a  mandatory  mini-
—————— 

3 The  Court  of  Criminal  Appeals  also  affirmed  the  juvenile  court’s
denial of Miller’s request for funds to hire his own mental expert for the 
transfer hearing.  The court pointed out that under governing Alabama
Supreme  Court  precedent,  “the  procedural  requirements  of  a  trial  do
not  ordinarily  apply”  to  those  hearings.    E.  J.  M.  v.  State,  928  So. 2d 
1077  (2004)  (Cobb,  J.,  concurring  in  result)  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted).  In  a  separate  opinion,  Judge  Cobb  agreed  on  the  reigning
precedent, but urged the State Supreme Court to revisit the question in
light  of  transfer  hearings’  importance.    See  id.,  at  1081  (“[A]lthough
later  mental  evaluation  as  an  adult  affords  some  semblance  of  proce-
dural due process, it is, in effect, too little, too late”).