Title: Ex Parte Musgrove
Citation: 638 So. 2d 1360
Docket Number: 1921210, 1921211
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 1993

638 So. 2d 1360 (1993)
Ex parte Donnis George MUSGROVE.
(Re David Walter ROGERS and Donnis George Musgrove v. STATE).
Ex parte David Walter ROGERS.
(Re David Walter ROGERS and Donnis George Musgrove v. STATE).
1921210, 1921211.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 17, 1993.
Rehearing Denied March 4, 1994.
*1362 Dwight L. Driskill, Birmingham, for Donnis George Musgrove.
Tommy Nail of McAbee, Nail &amp; Ragsdale, Birmingham, for David Walter Rogers.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Melissa G. Math and Sandra J. Stewart, Deputy Attys. Gen., for State.
HORNSBY, Chief Justice.
In a consolidated trial, David Walter Rogers and Donnis George Musgrove were convicted of capital murder and both were sentenced to death. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed their convictions, based on what that court ruled was the improper admission of evidence of their flight from police nearly two months after the murder. Rogers and Musgrove v. State, 630 So. 2d 78 (Ala. Crim.App.1991). On certiorari review, this Court reversed, ruling that there had been no error in the admission of the flight evidence. Rogers and Musgrove v. State, 630 So. 2d 88 (Ala.1992). On remand from this *1363 Court the Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the remaining issues raised on appeal and then affirmed the convictions. Rogers and Musgrove v. State, 638 So. 2d 1347 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).
This Court has granted each defendant's petition for certiorari review. Rule 39(c), A.R.App.P. In their petitions, Musgrove raised 16 issues for review and Rogers raised 15. All but four of the issues were presented to and treated in great detail by the Court of Criminal Appeals in its two prior opinions in this case.[1] We address only the newly raised issues and one issue previously considered by the Court of Criminal Appealswhether during closing arguments at the guilt phase of the trial the district attorney improperly commented on the defendants' failure to testify and, thus, violated their constitutional right not to testify.
In the early morning of September 27, 1986, two men armed with handguns broke into a small house in Robinwood, in Jefferson County, Alabama. The house was occupied by Coy Eugene Barron, his wife Libby, their baby, and an overnight guest, Jamie Crawford, who was asleep on a mattress in the living room. The men kicked in the front door of the darkened house and proceeded directly to the single bedroom where Coy and Libby and their baby were sleeping.
Coy awoke and attempted to hold the bedroom door closed while his wife stood behind him, holding the baby. The men forced the door open and when Coy picked up a bottle as if to throw it at them, they each fired a shot. One of the shots missed, but the other fatally injured Coy. After the shots, the men quickly fled.
On October 1, 1986, Libby Barron was shown a five-photograph "lineup" of potential suspects, which included photos of both Musgrove and Rogers. She identified the two as her husband's killers, but wanted to see a live lineup. Musgrove and Rogers were arrested on November 22, 1986, following a lengthy, high-speed automobile chase in the area of Decatur, Alabama, which ensued when they fled from a police officer who was attempting to pull them over for driving a vehicle that did not have a license plate other than a dealer's tag. At the time of their arrest, both defendants were escapees from prison work release programs and Rogers was under a sentence of life imprisonment. On December 5, 1986, Libby Barron identified both Musgrove and Rogers in separate live lineups.
In February 1987 the defendants were indicted for capital murder. Musgrove was charged with intentionally causing the death of Coy Barron by shooting him with a pistol during the course of a burglary, Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(4). Rogers's indictment contained the same count as Musgrove's and contained a second count alleging that he committed the murder while under a sentence of life imprisonment, Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-5-40(a)(6).
At trial, in February 1988, the defendants presented alibi evidence that they had been in Bradenton, Florida, staying with Musgrove's aunt from August 28 until October 6, 1986, and that they had never left her house for more than a few hours at a time. The State rebutted this testimony by presenting evidence that a wallet and identification that were in Rogers's possession at the time of his and Musgrove's arrest had last been seen by the wallet's owner in the glove compartment of his automobile, which had been parked in front of his apartment in suburban Atlanta, Georgia, on September 28, 1986, the day following the murder.
The jury found both defendants guilty of capital murder, and at the sentencing phase of the trial the jury returned a verdict recommending the death penalty. On May 20, 1988, the trial judge sentenced the defendants to death.
Musgrove and Rogers contend that they are due a new trial because they say the jury "separated" during a Sunday recess of their trial and the separation was without their consent. Section 12-16-9(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides:
Where a separation occurs in violation of such a statute, there is a presumption of prejudice to the accused. Reeves v. State, 432 So. 2d 543, 547-48 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). Musgrove and Rogers contend not only that a separation occurred, but that the separation was in violation of the statute and that the State has failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice. In response, the State argues that the record reveals only that the trial judge allowed family visitation during the Sunday recess if the jurors chose to have family visitation and that the defendants have not shown that there was an actual "separation" of the jury. The State further contends that unless the defendants can first show that the jury improperly separated, there is no presumption of prejudice for the State to overcome. We agree.
Neither Musgrove nor Rogers objected at trial to the Sunday recess. Thus, this issue is being raised for the first time on this certiorari review. Accordingly, the issue was not properly preserved for appeal and is reviewable only under the plain error standard. Rule 39(k), A.R.App.P.; Ex parte McWilliams, [Ms. 1911242, January 29, 1993] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala.1993). We further note that before trial defense counsel objected to the court's decision to sequester the jury and suggested that a Sunday recess be taken, stating that the case had not received much publicity and was not expected to receive more during trial. For the defendants now to contend that the Sunday recess requested by defense counsel caused a "separation" of the jury that entitles them to a new trial nearly rises to the level of invited error.
Although the defendants vigorously argue that the trial court's allowing visitation rights for the jurors' family members during the Sunday recess constituted an improper "separation" of the jury, our review of this allegation of error is limited to what is found in the record. See Bush v. State, 333 So. 2d 186, 188 (Ala.1976). The record contains no indication that jurors actually received visitation from family members or that, if they did, any visitation amounted to a separation of the jury. The jurors were properly instructed by the trial judge not to discuss the case with anyone. Absent a showing in the record, it is not this Court's province to speculate as to what actually occurred during the Sunday recess. Accordingly, we find no plain error.
Both Musgrove and Rogers contend that the jury was not properly charged that it could return a felony murder conviction based on accomplice liability against either defendant if it found that the other was guilty of felony murder as the actual killer. They contend that the accomplice liability charge did not include an instruction that a defendant could be found guilty of felony murder by accomplice liability because the charge instructed the jury that accomplice liability required an intentional killing. Thus, they argue that the charge given precluded the jury from applying accomplice liability while considering the lesser included offense of felony murder, which does not require an intentional killing. In response, the State argues that proper instructions were given on both felony murder and accomplice liability.
Neither Musgrove nor Rogers objected to the jury charges at issue during trial and they have not previously raised the issue on appellate review. Accordingly, the issue is reviewable only under the plain error standard. Rule 39(k), A.R.App.P. We further note that during a conference with the trial judge before the jury charges were given, counsel for both Musgrove and Rogers objected to the court's giving of an instruction on felony murder. Defense counsel objected *1365 to jury charges on any lesser included offenses. For the defendants now to argue that they should be granted a new trial based on the contention that an offense they did not want the jury to consider was charged in such a way as to preclude the jury from finding them guilty on that charge, again, comes close to invited error.
We have examined the record and conclude that the jury was fully and adequately charged on both felony murder and accomplice liability. The record shows that the felony murder charge was immediately followed by the accomplice liability charge. Although the accomplice liability charge did instruct the jury that an intentional killing was required, the immediately preceding charge had properly instructed the jury that under the felony murder doctrine the element of intent is supplied by the commission of a felony.
In review of a trial court's jury charge, individual instructions are not to be isolated or taken out of context, but must be considered in light of all the instructions. Ex parte Holifield, 562 So. 2d 254, 255 (Ala.1992); Alexander v. State, 601 So. 2d 1130, 1133 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). Taken as a whole, these charges properly instructed the jury on the application of accomplice liability to felony murder. Accordingly, we find no deficiency in these jury charges that rises to the level of plain error.
Musgrove and Rogers contend that a jury instruction regarding the credibility of witnesses and the truthfulness of testimony removed from the jury its exclusive right to be the finder of fact and denied the defendants a fair trial. The jury instruction that the defendants now claim is improper stated:
(Emphasis added.)
The defendants contend that a jury instruction to reconcile all the testimony and to weigh the testimony of different witnesses differently only if such reconciliation is not possible requires that a juror initially take all the testimony of all the witnesses as true. They contend that such an instruction is "functionally identical" to an instruction to presume that the witnesses are testifying truthfully, which would have prevented the jury from disbelieving any testimony that was not contradicted. Under Alabama law, there is no presumption that a witness is testifying truthfully. Ex parte Holifield, 562 So. 2d 254, 255 (Ala.1990); Williams v. State, 520 So. 2d 179, 181 (Ala.Crim.App.1987).
Neither Musgrove nor Rogers objected to the jury charges at issue during trial and they have not previously raised the issue on appellate review. Accordingly, the issue is reviewable only under the plain error standard. Rule 39(k), A.R.App.P. The State contends that this individual jury instruction does not constitute plain error because, it says, the jury charge, when taken in its entirety, clearly informed the jurors that they were the sole factfinders and judges of the witnesses' credibility. We agree.
In Ex parte Holifield, we found that a nearly identical jury instruction to reconcile the testimony so that the witnesses have spoken the truth was merely harmless error because the charge in its entirety "cured" the error found in that isolated instruction. 562 So. 2d  at 255. As previously noted, in review of a trial court's jury charge, individual instructions are not to be isolated or taken out of context, but must be considered in light of all the other instructions. Id.; Alexander, 601 So. 2d  at 1133. In this case, the record reveals that the trial judge repeatedly instructed the jurors that they were to be the sole finders of fact and weighers of the witnesses' credibility. For example, the trial judge stated:
Accordingly, even though the trial judge's instruction to reconcile the testimony was in error, any error was sufficiently cured by the additional instructions, so that the error did not rise to the level of plain error.
Musgrove and Rogers contend that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that evidence of their flight from police could be used only to conclude that they absented themselves out of a consciousness of guilt of the murder of Coy Barron or that they absented themselves out of an innocent and lawful purpose. They argue that the jury was, therefore, not allowed to consider that their flight was motivated by reasons other than a consciousness of guilt of the murder, such as the fact that both were escapees from prison release programs or that they were riding in a stolen car. In response, the State argues that when the jury instruction at issue is examined in its entirety, and not isolated, one must conclude that the jury was properly instructed to look to all the evidence to determine the motivation for the defendants' flight and was not precluded from finding a motive other than a consciousness of guilt of the murder.
The jury instruction at issue stated:
(Emphasis added.)
Neither Musgrove nor Rogers objected to this jury charge during trial, and they have not previously raised the issue on appellate review. Accordingly, the issue is reviewable only under the plain error standard. Rule 39(k), A.R.App.P. The State contends that the instruction properly informed *1367 the jury that it was to consider all the surrounding circumstances in determining a motivation for the defendants' flight and that when a second charge given to the jury is also considered, it is clear that there was no plain error.
This Court concludes that, by itself, the first charge given to the jury regarding the use of evidence of the defendants' flight improperly limited the jury to considering the flight to be either evidence of guilt of the murder of Coy Barron or, in the alternative, evidence of an innocent and lawful flight. Standing alone, this jury charge might rise to the level of plain error. Plain error is "error which, when examined in the context of the entire case, is so obvious that failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of the judicial proceedings." United States v. Butler, 792 F.2d 1528, 1535 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 933, 107 S. Ct. 407, 93 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1986).
However, as previously noted, in review of a trial court's jury charge, individual instructions are not to be isolated or taken out of context, but must be considered in light of all the other instructions. Ex parte Holifield, 562 So. 2d  at 255; Alexander, 601 So. 2d  at 1133. We hold that any error in the first charge on the use of flight evidence was sufficiently cured by a later jury charge, so that there was no plain error.
The second instruction, which had been requested by defense counsel, stated:
(Emphasis added.) This instruction repeated to the jury the explanation that it could look to all the evidence to determine the motive for the defendants' flight, and it sufficiently cured the impropriety that existed in the earlier charge. Accordingly, we find no plain error.
Musgrove and Rogers argue that, during the State's closing argument to the jury in the guilt phase of the trial, the prosecutor improperly commented on their failure to testify, thereby violating their constitutional rights and depriving them of a fair trial. Article I, § 6, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 states, in part, that the accused in a criminal prosecution "shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself." This constitutional right is the basis for the requirement that a criminal defendant's failure to testify shall not be commented upon by the prosecution. Ex parte Wilson, 571 So. 2d 1251, 1261 (Ala.1990); Whitt v. State, 370 So. 2d 736, 738 (Ala.1979). In Alabama, this right is also protected by statute:
Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-220.
Specifically, Musgrove and Rogers contend that the prosecutor's questions, "What did you hear from the defense?" and "What did you hear from the Defendant?"made during rebuttal closing argumentwere improper comments on their failure to testify. Following defense counsel's objections, the trial judge failed to give a curative instruction regarding the district attorney's statements to the jury. The prosecutor continued with the remainder of his closing argument. At a later request for a ruling on the objections, the trial judge indicated that the objections would be overruled, but also taken under advisement.
*1368 The defendants argue that because they properly objected and moved for a new trial based on the prosecutor's statements and because no curative instruction was given to the jury, § 12-21-220 requires that they be granted a new trial. For reasons set forth below, we disagree.
Given another set of circumstances, this Court might find the defendants' argument compelling. Because even indirect comments on an accused's failure to testify have the potential to be highly prejudicial, a prosecutor must be careful not to step over the line and into a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Ex parte Williams, 461 So. 2d 852, 853 (Ala.1984); Whitt v. State, 370 So. 2d  at 739. However, under the particular facts of this case, we find that the prosecutor's statements were not comments on the defendants' failure to testify.
When an accused contends that a prosecutor has made improper comments during a closing argument, the statements at issue must be viewed in the context of the evidence presented in the case and the entire closing argument made to the juryboth defense counsel's and the prosecutor's. Washington v. State, 259 Ala. 104, 65 So. 2d 704 (1953); Stephens v. State, 580 So. 2d 11 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 580 So. 2d 26 (Ala. 1991). When the prosecutor's statements are viewed in the proper context, we conclude that they were permissible responses to comments made by the defendants' counsel during closing argument. See Stephens, supra; Merritt v. State, 571 So. 2d 409 (Ala. Crim.App.1990).
During closing argument, defense counsel made repeated attacks upon the prosecution's presentation of its case and the prosecution's motivation for obtaining a conviction. For example, defense counsel for Rogers criticized the prosecutors and argued:
Among the concluding comments in Rogers's closing argument was the following statement:
(Emphasis added.)
It was only thereafter, during the prosecution's rebuttal closing argument, that the statements at issue on this review were made. In the first part of that closing argument, the prosecutor discussed at length the evidence presented by the State. Then he outlined the evidence presented by the defense and contested its merit. Finally, the prosecutor began an ending summary of the State's, and then of the defense's, case.
The Court of Criminal Appeals wrote concerning the second statement at issue:
Musgrove and Rogers v. State, 638 So. 2d 1347, 1359 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).
We agree. A prosecutor has the right to point out to the jury that certain parts of the State's evidence have not been contradicted. Ex parte Williams, 461 So. 2d  at 853; Windsor v. State, 593 So. 2d 87, 91 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). Further, a prosecutor has the right to fairly "reply in kind" to statements made by defense counsel in the defense's closing argument. Davis v. State, 494 So. 2d 851 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). We conclude that, when viewed in the context of the closing arguments of both the defense and *1370 the State, the statements at issue were not a reference to the defendants' failure to testify, but rather were a reply to the argument made by Rogers's counsel comparing the State's efforts to convict the defendants to the actions of Adolph Hitler in killing millions of Jews. Accordingly, we find no error in the statements that would warrant a reversal of the defendants's convictions.
We have searched the entire record for any plain error or defect that might have adversely affected the defendants' substantial rights and we have found none. Rule 45A, A.R.App.P. Having considered each of the issues raised by Musgrove and Rogers, we conclude that their convictions and sentences of death are due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
MADDOX, SHORES, HOUSTON, STEAGALL and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
[1]  After a thorough and careful review of the record, we hold that the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly decided those issues not further addressed in this opinion.