Opinion ID: 1782126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the civil proceeding and the criminal proceeding are parallel.

Text: In Ex parte Weems, this Court held that the trial judge did not err in denying the motion to stay discovery in a civil action because the civil and criminal actions were not parallel proceedings. In Weems, the ex-wife hired a private investigator to determine if her telephone line had been tapped after she was awarded the marital home in the divorce settlement. While the investigator was on the property, the ex-husband came onto the property and shot the investigator in the arm; the investigator then shot the ex-husband. The ex-husband was indicted for assault with intent to murder as a result of shooting the investigator. The ex-husband then sued his ex-wife, alleging negligent hiring and supervision of the private investigator. The trial court refused to grant the ex-husband a stay in his civil proceeding because it found that the criminal action involved a determination as to whether the ex-husband shot the investigator with intent to murder, while the civil action involved a determination as to whether the ex-wife was negligent in her hiring and supervising of the investigator. Because these were not parallel proceedings involving the same act, the Weems Court denied the ex-husband's petition for a writ of mandamus. This Court has held that the moving party is entitled to the requested stay in the civil proceedings when the civil case and the criminal case have been parallel proceedings. In Ex parte Oliver, 864 So.2d 1064 (Ala.2003), the defendant, Oliver, moved for a stay of the civil action arising out of an automobile accident based on criminal charges arising from the accident. The trial court held that the motion for a stay was moot because no indictment had been issued against Oliver after three grand juries had convened and the plaintiffs had modified their discovery requests to protect Oliver against self-incrimination. Oliver filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court. This Court held that Oliver failed to show that he had a clear legal right to the stay or that the trial court had an imperative duty to grant the relief requested. However, the Court noted that subsequent to the filing of the petition for a writ of mandamus, Oliver had been indicted by a grand jury. Although this Court denied the petition, it stated: In light of the return of the indictment against Oliver and the need to guarantee Oliver's Fifth Amendment privilege, our caselaw, see Ex parte White, 551 So.2d 923 (Ala.1989), and its progeny, requires that a stay of the civil proceedings be issued to guarantee Oliver's Fifth Amendment privilege. Oliver, however, has not presented this change in circumstance the return of the indictment, which creates an imperative duty for the trial court to stay the civil proceedings to the trial court. This Court will not direct a court to take some action it has not previously refused to take. 864 So.2d at 1067. See also Ex parte Coastal Training Inst., supra (writ issued to stay civil proceedings where the civil and criminal proceedings arose out of vocational school's mishandling of students' grant funds); and Ex parte White, 551 So.2d 923 (Ala.1989)(writ issued to stay civil proceedings where the civil and criminal proceedings arose out of a collision in which the defendant drove his vehicle into the plaintiffs' house). In McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34, 40, 45 S.Ct. 16, 69 L.Ed. 158 (1924), Justice Brandeis stated: The government insists, broadly, that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination does not apply in any civil proceeding. The contrary must be accepted as settled. The privilege is not ordinarily dependent upon the nature of the proceeding in which the testimony is sought or is to be used. It applies alike to civil and criminal proceedings, wherever the answer might tend to subject to criminal responsibility him who gives it. The privilege protects a mere witness as fully as it does one who is also a party defendant. The Fifth Amendment privilege not only protects the individual against being involuntarily called as a witness against himself in a criminal prosecution but also privileges him not to answer official questions put to him in any other proceeding, civil or criminal, formal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings. Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.Ct. 316, 38 L.Ed.2d 274 (1973). The Fifth Amendment privilege can be raised in any proceeding, civil or criminal, administrative or judicial, investigatory or adjudicatory. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 444, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972) (footnote omitted). The party requesting a stay of the civil proceeding does not actually have to be indicted. Ex parte Coastal Training, 583 So.2d at 981. A party is entitled to assert the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination although no criminal charges have been instituted, and even where the risk of prosecution is remote, so long as the party reasonably apprehends a risk of self-incrimination. A party need not be indicted to properly claim the Fifth Amendment privilege. Ex parte Ebbers, 871 So.2d at 787. See also Ex parte Antonucci, 917 So.2d at 830 (chief executive officer of insolvent corporation was entitled to stay of civil action brought by the insolvent corporation where both the civil action and the criminal investigation focused on the same conduct). Bryan is charged here with criminal mischief, criminal trespass, and stalking. The criminal-mischief and criminal-trespass charges stem from the incident on October 27, 2004, when he drove his truck into the garage and severely damaged the marital home and Teresa's car. This incident occurred after Teresa filed for divorce. Teresa's attorney stated at the hearing on Bryan's motion to stay the divorce proceedings that if those proceedings went forward he would not ask Bryan any questions concerning incidents that occurred after Teresa had filed for divorce. Therefore, concerning the charges of criminal mischief and criminal trespass, there would be no overlap in the criminal and civil cases. The civil divorce proceeding and the criminal proceedings resulting from the criminal-mischief and criminal-trespass charges are thus not parallel proceedings. However, the stalking charge presents a different situation. Section 13A-6-90, Ala.Code 1975, provides: A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A prosecutor must thus prove that a defendant repeatedly followed or harassed the victim to sustain a conviction for stalking. Bryan argues that because, in order to prove guilt of stalking, the State must prove repeated actions, the criminal proceeding involving the stalking charge and the divorce proceeding are parallel proceedings. This Court agrees. To prove the stalking charge, the prosecution will possibly need to avail itself of evidence of alleged incidents and alleged abuse by Bryan that occurred before Teresa filed for divorce. Because that criminal proceeding and the divorce proceeding have some overlapping acts, they must be considered parallel proceedings. Therefore, Bryan's motion for a stay cannot be denied on the grounds that these are not parallel proceedings. The dissent argues that the criminal proceeding involving the stalking charge and the divorce proceeding may or may not be parallel. However, a divorce action in which there are allegations of abuse, harassment, threats, and intimidation and a felony stalking charge could not be more parallel. As already mentioned, to prove Bryan was guilty of stalking Teresa, the State must prove that he was intentionally and repeatedly follow[ing] or harass[ing] her. Although the State may be planning to introduce as evidence the event that occurred on October 27, 2004, to help prove the stalking charge, that single instance will not be enough to prove repeated actions by Bryan. The repeated actions the State will need to prove its stalking case are those that occurred throughout the marriage, the occasions of physical and verbal abus[e] on which Teresa based her complaint for divorce. (Teresa's brief, ex. B.) Even if, as the dissent hypothesizes, the State planned to use only events occurring after Teresa filed for divorce to prove its stalking case, there is nothing barring the State, after the civil proceedings have begun, from using events that occurred before Teresa filed for divorce to prove that charge. Therefore, because we cannot base our decision on what the State may plan to do hypothetically, we conclude that, based on the evidence needed to prove the stalking charge, these are parallel proceedings.