Opinion ID: 1735660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cochran's Motion to Strike

Text: In Cochran's written motion to strike, which he filed the morning of trial, he argued, in pertinent part: Comes now the defendant, Jimmy Cochran, ... and files this Motion to Strike ... and moves this Honorable Court to Strike the allegations of misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of an election official and shows as follows: 1. Pursuant to the strict requirements of Ala.Code, § 17-15-21, and Carter v. Wiley, 406 So.2d 340 (Ala.1981), a party filing an election contest[] must provide via his Notice of Nature of the Evidence his allegations of misconduct, fraud and corruption on the part of the election official. [2]. The plaintiff's complaint and Notice of Nature of the Evidence fails to state the specific facts concerning the allegations of misconduct, fraud, and corruption on the part of an election official. ... WHEREFORE, premise considered, the defendant, Jimmy Paul Cochran, requests that this court strike the allegations of misconduct, fraud, and corruption contained in the plaintiff's complaint .... (Emphasis added.) Thus, he argued in the trial court, as he does here, that Grubbs failed to comply with § 17-15-21 and with cases applying that Code section. [1] Section 17-15-21 provides:  No testimony must be received of any illegal votes or of the rejection of any legal votes in any contested election commenced under the provisions of this article unless the party complaining thereof has given to the adverse party notice in writing of the number of illegal votes and by whom given and for whom given, and at what precinct or voting place cast, or the number of legal votes rejected, and by whom offered, and at what precinct or voting place cast, which he expects to prove on the trial. Such notice must be served personally or left at the residence or usual place of business of the adverse party at least 10 days before the taking of testimony in reference to such votes.  (Emphasis added.) Section 17-15-21 applies to elections of municipal officials. Turner v. Cooper, 347 So.2d 1339, 1344 (Ala.1977); Pope v. Howle, 227 Ala. 154, 149 So. 222 (1933). Strict compliance with this section is mandatory. Turner, 347 So.2d at 1345; Dobbs v. Brunson, 17 Ala.App. 318, 85 So. 38 (1920). Thus, the statute required Grubbs to set out in his [notice] sufficient facts to show wherein and how the election official[] [was] guilty of malconduct, Carter v. Wiley, 406 So.2d 340, 347 (1981) (Maddox, J., concurring specially), as alleged in the complaint, and to do so at least 10 days before the taking of testimony. In the absence of such notice, Grubbs could not proceed on a malconduct theory at trial. See Turner, supra; Carter, supra; see also Thomas v. Kellett, 489 So.2d 554 (Ala.1986). In Carter, for example, a contest was commenced on the complaint of James A. Carter, an unsuccessful candidate for election to the Mobile County Commission. 406 So.2d at 341. The complaint asserted the following three grounds for the contest: `(a) Malconduct, fraud or corruption on the part of (election officials) which malconduct, fraud or corruption if corrected would show that Contestant received a majority of the legal votes cast in said election for said office. `(b) ... if the illegal votes counted for Contestee were deducted from the total votes received by said Contestee that Contestant would have a majority of the legal votes cast in said election for said office and should be declared the winner of said office. `(c) ... if the rejected legal votes had been counted, Contestant would have had a majority of the legal votes cast in said election for said office and should be declared the winner of said office.' 406 So.2d at 341 (emphasis added). Subsequently, Carter filed a pleading styled `Notice of Nature of the Evidence' ..., which purported to comply with the terms of § 17-15-21 (the notice pleading). Carter, 406 So.2d at 343. The notice pleading stated, in pertinent part: `Contestant states that there is hereto attached and marked Exhibit A, ... the list of legal votes cast in the County Commission District Two General Election of Tuesday, November 4, 1980, which were rejected, which said list gives the name of the person voting whose legal vote was rejected.... Contestant avers that all of said votes on said list were cast for Contestant James A. Carter, and all of which legal votes were rejected, and all of which votes were cast by Absentee Ballots delivered to the Courthouse ..., that said list gives the precinct and voting place wherein each voter would have voted had he or she not voted by Absentee Ballot. If these legal votes rejected are included in the total vote received by Contestant, then Contestant will have received the highest number of legal votes cast in said election. `The total number of said legal votes is 1,522. `Applications have heretofore been made to the Honorable John L. Moore, Judge of Probate of Mobile County, Alabama, pursuant to Section 17-15-4 of the 1975 Code of Alabama, to deliver to the Contestant or his attorney a certified copy of the poll lists of challenged ballots cast in said election..., and upon said Judge of Probate's complying with said provision of Alabama law, Contestant will furnish to the Contestee the names, voting districts, and number of votes thereof which will be offered as proof on the trial of said cause as having been illegally cast for Contestee Wiley....' Carter, 406 So.2d at 343. On motion of the contestee, Dan Wiley, the trial court struck the notice pleading on the ground that it failed to comply with § 17-15-21. When Carter declined the court's offer of an extension of time to amend the notice pleading, the court dismissed the action. 406 So.2d at 344-45. This Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal. In doing so, it explained: For aught that appears in his notice of the nature of evidence, Contestant Carter had abandoned his allegations of malconduct. In that notice pleading, Contestant pursues only those allegations of his complaint with respect to the issues of rejection of legal, and acceptance of illegal, votes. His notice does not, however, comport with the contention upon which he now proceeds: the alleged malconduct of the election officials in tabulating the votes and in tampering with the posted totals. ... Where, as here, a contestant draws his fraud allegations as charging a particular species of fraud and contends that such allegations are authorized under the statute, he is left with no choice but to conform his formal notice of the nature of evidence to his charging averments or suffer defeat in his effort to discover evidentiary support for such allegations. Id. at 345-46 (emphasis added). The purpose of § 17-15-21 is to ensure that notice is given to parties adverse to the election contest, at least 10 days before the taking of testimony, of what the contestant expects the evidence to show at trial. 406 So.2d at 341. It is certainly no answer that such evidence might surface during testimony at trial. Cochran was entitled to notice, no later than September 17, 2004, of sufficient facts to show wherein and how the election[] official[] [was] guilty, 406 So.2d at 347 (Maddox, J., concurring specially), of the misconduct, fraud, or corruption averred in the complaint. The notice, however, contained no mention of official misconduct. For all that appeared on the day of trial, Grubbs had abandoned his claim of misconduct, fraud, or corruption on the part of an election official. Not only was evidence of such conduct received at the trial, but it formed the basis of the judgment annulling the election. Specifically, the trial court found that M.L.H., D.M., and B.L. had mailed their absentee ballots without [the] accompanying [a]ffidavit, and, therefore, that their votes for Grubbs could not be counted. It also found that their attempts at voting by absentee ballot were thwarted by wrongdoing on the part of the Absentee Election Manager, and/or others without proper authorization acting in his stead. In particular, the court concluded that it was wrong for the election manager to be absent from the office on the last three business days before the week of the election, and that this absence constituted negligence, misconduct, fraud and/or corruption. Thus, the court concluded, the unsuccessful attempts by M.L.H., D.M., and B.L. to vote by absentee ballot warranted a new election. The trial court erred in allowing Grubbs to present evidence of alleged improper conduct of the election manager and in relying on that evidence as a basis for annulling the election.