Opinion ID: 1889713
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether a motion to exclude should have been granted as to count two

Text: Count two charged that the killings were done for pecuniary or other valuable consideration or pursuant to a contract or for hire, in violation of § 13-11-2(a)(7), Code of Alabama (1975) (repealed). The trial court submitted all three counts to the jury, which returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment. The jury, therefore, convicted Tomlin of every crime included in the indictment, including murder pursuant to a contract or for hire. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, based on the evidence that Tomlin was accompanied by Daniels, whom he introduced as a hit man. Even though Tomlin did not himself act pursuant to a contract or for hire, there was sufficient evidence to convict him because under Alabama's accomplice statute all persons concerned in the commission of the crime must be indicted, tried, and punished as principals. Section 13-9-1, Code of Alabama (1975) (repealed). The petitioner argued that the court's findings in its sentencing order could not be reconciled with the jury verdict. The court's sentencing order states, inter alia, that the capital felony was not committed for pecuniary gain and that Mr. Tomlin was not an accomplice ... but was in fact a principal who was present and assisted in the commission of the double homicide. The finding that Tomlin did not act for pecuniary gain was not at odds with the theory that he hired Daniels as his hit man and was, therefore, liable as Daniels's accomplice. The court's finding that Tomlin was not an accomplice but was present and assisted in the killings is incongruous on its face. If Tomlin assisted Daniels in the killings he was, by definition, Daniels's accomplice. The finding in question was made with reference to § 13-11-7(4), Code of Alabama (1975) (repealed), which provides that it is a mitigating circumstance to be considered in sentencing the defendant if the defendant was an accomplice whose participation was relatively minor. The court was apparently attempting to state that Tomlin was not an accomplice whose participation was relatively minor, but simply omitted that crucial language. At any rate, the issue is moot. The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that the finding in question was defective and ordered that the cause be remanded for a correction of the sentencing order. Objections based on the content of the sentencing order should be raised after remandment.