Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Wilson v. State
Citations: 690 So. 2d 449; 1995 WL 11398Docket: CR-92-1223, CR-93-2132
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; January 12, 1995; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Betty Woods Wilson was convicted of hiring an individual to murder her husband, Dr. Jack W. Wilson, which was classified as capital murder due to the nature of the contract for the murder involving pecuniary gain. Wilson opted to waive the jury during the penalty phase, and the state recommended a sentence of life without parole, which the court accepted. Following her conviction, Wilson filed a petition for post-conviction relief, delaying the direct appeal until the trial court addressed her petition, which was ultimately denied in September 1994. The case involved significant evidence, including the brutal murder of Dr. Wilson, whose body was discovered on May 22, 1992, with severe head injuries and stab wounds. The murder weapon, a bloody baseball bat, was found nearby. Dr. Joseph Embry, a forensic pathologist, testified that Dr. Wilson died from the injuries consistent with a baseball bat attack, noting multiple lacerations on his head. James Dennison White, who was indicted for Dr. Wilson's murder, testified against Wilson under a plea agreement. He claimed he was hired by Wilson and her sister, Peggy Lowe, to kill Dr. Wilson, motivated in part by a desire to win Lowe’s affection. Their discussions about the murder occurred between late March and early April 1992, after Lowe indicated her sister was in a troubled marriage and wanted to eliminate her husband. The case's complexity and the intertwined personal relationships contributed to the legal proceedings. White testified that he and Peggy Lowe agreed on a price of $5,000, of which she later provided him with $2,500 from her sister. After receiving the money, White used it to pay overdue utility bills, deposit $500 into his overdrawn bank account, and support his four children. He attributed his financial struggles to previous injuries to his ankle and knee. Following a sexual encounter with Lowe on May 15, 1992, she pressured him to murder Dr. Wilson, threatening that she would have to repay her sister if he did not comply. Lowe instructed White to retrieve a book from Wilson’s car at Lake Guntersville State Park, claiming it would contain money for his trip to Huntsville to carry out the murder. When White arrived at the park on May 16, he was initially denied entry by a security guard. After contacting Lowe, he was directed to leave a message for Wilson at the lodge, and eventually, a guard delivered the book to him. Shortly after, Wilson contacted White, inquiring about the murder and expressing urgency to complete it before May 24 due to vacation plans. White was unable to acquire ammunition for his gun. On May 20, Lowe informed him she had a gun for him. They met at Logan Martin Dam, where Lowe handed him a .38 caliber revolver wrapped in a sweater. White hid the gun at his trailer, awaiting further instruction. Early on May 21, White received a call from Wilson, who directed him to Dr. Wilson's office. However, he opted against killing him there due to the crowd. He then called Lowe to request money for an overnight stay in Huntsville, and Wilson instructed him to meet her at a Chick-Fil-A restaurant around noon that day to receive the funds. Wilson provided White with a bag containing $100 after they met at a restaurant. Following this, White purchased a travel kit and underwear to spend the night in Huntsville, then drove by the Wilson residence to familiarize himself with the property while pretending to jog. He encountered a neighbor during this time. After returning to his hotel, White contacted Lowe. The next day, Wilson picked him up at Parkway City Mall around 3:00 p.m. and drove him to her house, handing him $40 and directing him to her husband's bedroom, where Dr. Wilson was not present. White opted not to use a gun and instead brought rope, waiting in the house for several hours until Dr. Wilson arrived. They struggled, resulting in White attacking Dr. Wilson with an unidentified object. White later found himself in the woods behind the house, buried clothes, and had Wilson drive him back to his car at the mall. He was supposed to leave $2,500 in Lowe's garage after the murder but could not find it when he went to retrieve it. Witnesses supported various aspects of White's testimony, including that he received money in April for the murder and had a sudden influx of cash before Dr. Wilson's death. Linda Bush from First Bank of Childersburg confirmed White's deposit of $500 on April 27, 1992, despite having no deposits from January to April and a negative account balance prior. Shirley Smith, a local grocery store owner, testified that White paid her for returned checks marked 'insufficient funds' shortly before the murder. Additionally, evidence suggested that Wilson was unhappy in her marriage, with testimony indicating marital deterioration and Wilson's extramarital affairs. JoAnn Chiri, who worked in Dr. Wilson's office, noted Wilson's unkindness toward her husband and her preference for being a widow over a divorcee. E.F., who met Wilson at an AA meeting, confirmed their affair, which included meetings at hotels and the Wilson residence. M.A.L., a former friend of appellant Wilson, ended their friendship upon discovering that Wilson was using her as an alibi for a trip to New York City to meet another man. Brenda McDowell, Dr. Wilson's bookkeeper, recounted an incident where Wilson expressed rage towards Dr. Wilson and made an obscene gesture. Shirley Green, the Wilsons' housekeeper, testified that the couple slept in separate bedrooms, that Wilson made derogatory comments about Dr. Wilson, and that she referred to Dr. Wilson's colostomy bag as a "shit bag." Green noted that Wilson frequently had male visitors and had previously inquired about hiring someone to kill Dr. Wilson in 1986. Brenda Cerha testified that Wilson asked her for assistance in killing Dr. Wilson shortly after Cerha's husband committed suicide in 1986, leading to a deterioration of their friendship. Multiple witnesses corroborated Ron White's account of events on May 16, 1992, at Lake Guntersville State Park, where security guards confirmed interactions with Wilson regarding retrieving a book from her car. Telephone records indicated a call was made from a payphone to Lowe's house on that date. Further corroboration came from various individuals regarding White’s activities on May 21, 1992, including testimony from Ron White's restaurant manager and a music store associate about his presence and purchases. Gary Houck, manager of the Ramada Inn, confirmed White’s stay and calls made from his room to Lowe's residence. Additionally, Jim Garrett, a neighbor, observed a man resembling a jogger near the Wilson house around 4:00 p.m. on May 21, and Mavis Kennedy saw White in the Lowe garage days after the murder, with a library book in his possession at the time of his arrest. Betty Wilson checked out the book "The Sleeping Beauty and the Firebird" from the library. Police located appellant Wilson's gun near White's trailer, where Wilson directed them to search. Multiple witnesses provided testimony regarding Wilson's actions on the day of the murder. Peter Coulter confirmed that Wilson purchased flowered tennis shoes at Yeildings department store at 2:11 p.m. JoAnn Williamson stated that Wilson visited her office around 4:00 p.m. to collect a check, while David Williams testified that Wilson filled prescriptions at Whitesport Pharmacy at 4:30 p.m. Sheila Irby reported seeing a man she identified as White limping toward Wilson's house around 5:00 p.m. and observed Wilson driving in the vicinity at approximately 5:15 p.m. N.N., a friend from Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), noted that Wilson declined an earlier meeting request, citing shopping, and planned to meet at 5:30 p.m. Belinda Schumann testified that Wilson left a parking space at the AA meeting location at 5:25 p.m. However, Wilson did not arrive at the meeting until 6:00 p.m. and was dressed casually instead of her usual attire. Wilson's defense argued her actions were an attempt to assist White in attending AA. Wilson contested the sufficiency of corroborative evidence to support the testimony of accomplice James Dennison White, referencing Code of Alabama 1975, § 12-21-222, which requires corroboration for an accomplice’s testimony. Wilson was convicted under § 13A-5-40(a)(7) for murder for hire. The case's corroborative evidence must relate to the murder for hire aspect rather than the act itself. It was not alleged that Wilson physically committed the murder; rather, the state accused her of planning and financing the crime. The court must evaluate the evidence favorably for the state in assessing the corroboration of White's testimony regarding an agreement for the murder of Dr. Jack Wilson. The sufficiency of corroborative evidence for an accomplice's testimony is evaluated through a 'subtraction process.' Initially, the accomplice's evidence is disregarded, and if remaining evidence sufficiently connects the defendant to the crime, corroboration is established. Corroborative evidence does not need to directly affirm the accomplice's statements or be strong enough to secure a conviction on its own; it must merely tend to relate the defendant to the offense. This evidence can include circumstantial evidence and does not need to confirm every material fact mentioned by the accomplice. The entirety of the accused’s conduct can be considered to infer connection to the crime. Corroboration is defined as enhancing credibility through additional evidence. The law does not mandate corroborative testimony for essential crime elements; however, it must connect the defendant to the crime per Alabama Code § 12-21-222. A combination of facts can suffice for corroboration even if each fact alone is inadequate. In the case at hand, sufficient corroborative evidence linked Betty Woods Wilson to the crime of murder for hire based on testimony from an accomplice, White. White stated that Wilson's sister directed him to obtain money from Wilson, which was left in a book in Wilson's car at Lake Guntersville State Park. When White attempted to retrieve the book, he encountered park security, which corroborated his account. A security guard, Keith Tucker, confirmed that White attempted entry to the park and was instructed to call the lodge, supporting the details of White's testimony. Telephone records indicated that a collect call was made to appellant Wilson's sister from a Union 76 Station near the park entrance. Security guard Robert Hawkins testified that he was instructed to contact Wilson regarding a book needed at the gate. After locating her, he assisted Wilson in retrieving the book from her car and delivered it to White at the gate. Evidence suggests Wilson hired White to murder her husband, with White corroborating this claim by detailing the payment of expense money from Wilson. Additionally, six years prior to the murder, Wilson expressed a desire to kill her husband to Brenda Cerha, indicating a persistent intention to eliminate him rather than pursue divorce. Testimony revealed that White possessed a significant amount of cash around the time he allegedly received $2,500 from Wilson for the murder, which, while not definitive proof of the source, supports the claim when considered alongside other evidence. The cumulative evidence sufficiently connects Wilson to the crime of hiring a hitman. Wilson also argued that the court erred in denying her Batson motion, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling that prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection. Batson and its subsequent cases established that a defendant must show a prima facie case of discrimination for the prosecution’s peremptory strikes to be challenged. The court's ruling on such motions is only overturned if clearly erroneous. The records indicated a venire of 94 members, of which 15 were black, but Wilson did not demonstrate a prima facie case of racial discrimination in the jury selection process. Of the 41 peremptory challenges exercised by the state, 9 targeted black veniremembers, while the defense used 2 strikes against black jurors. Wilson's Batson claim was based solely on the fact that the state removed 9 out of 15 black veniremembers. The court questioned Wilson for additional evidence before determining that she did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. In response to the Batson motion, the state argued that no prima facie case was presented, leading the court to overrule the motion. To evaluate a prima facie case, the court considers "all relevant circumstances" that may suggest discrimination, as established by Batson v. Kentucky. Types of evidence that can indicate discrimination include: 1. Jurors sharing only the characteristic of race, while differing in other respects. 2. A specific pattern of strikes against black jurors. 3. History of the state's attorney striking all black jurors from venires. 4. The quality and nature of the attorney's questions during voir dire. 5. The treatment and questioning of challenged jurors in comparison to non-challenged jurors. 6. Disparate treatment of jurors with similar responses. 7. Disparate questioning techniques aimed at disqualifying black jurors. 8. Circumstantial evidence of intent indicated by the impact of strikes against black jurors. 9. The overall use of peremptory challenges to dismiss most or all black jurors. Wilson's only argument was the removal of 9 black veniremembers out of 15, while the state had to strike 41 of 94 total veniremembers to form a jury. Ultimately, the state's strikes against black jurors constituted less than 22% of their total strikes, which is less than the threshold established in Ex parte Thomas for a prima facie case. The dismissal of black jurors does not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, as affirmed in Harrell v. State. A comprehensive review of the jury selection process showed no evidence of discriminatory peremptory strikes by the state. The court correctly ruled that the appellant did not present a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Regarding Sheila Irby's testimony, the appellant claims the court erred by not striking her identification testimony. Irby identified James White leaving Wilson's house shortly before she saw Wilson driving a black BMW. The appellant argued that Irby's identification was influenced by extensive pretrial publicity and suggestive comments from the District Attorney, and contended that her identification did not align with other case evidence. However, Wilson failed to object to the identification during direct examination and only raised the issue after the state’s case-in-chief. This lack of timely objection meant that the issue was not preserved for appeal, as established in prior case law. Even if the objection had been preserved, Irby's identifications met the standards set by the Supreme Court in Neil v. Biggers, which outlines five factors for assessing the reliability of witness identifications. Irby’s testimony included her opportunity to view the suspect, her attention level, the accuracy of her prior description, her certainty during the confrontation, and the timing of her identification relative to the crime. Irby described seeing a suspicious man while driving with young girls and noted that he did not belong in the neighborhood. She recalled seeing Wilson shortly after the incident, reinforcing her identification. Irby recognized Wilson from their high school and neighborhood. Following a murder, Irby informed a neighbor about a strange man seen on Boulder Circle on May 22, 1992. Although Irby believed the man had confessed and did not want to involve authorities, the neighbor contacted District Attorney Jimmy Fry. Irby subsequently provided her observations to Fry and Investigator Brantley, and her identifications were deemed reliable and admissible in court, aligning with the standards set in Neil v. Biggers. Wilson argued that the trial court erred by not permitting a tape-recorded conversation for impeachment purposes during Irby's cross-examination. The court ruled the tape could not be played in full, as Wilson failed to establish a proper predicate for admitting extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements. Consequently, Wilson could not impeach Irby effectively. Although Wilson read portions of the tape's transcript to challenge Irby's credibility, no prior inconsistent statements were substantiated. Additionally, Wilson alleged a violation of discovery rules under Rule 16 and Brady v. Maryland, asserting that the prosecution did not disclose certain statements by Irby and James White. To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must demonstrate that the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence that was material to the case. The evidence is considered material if there is a reasonable probability that its disclosure would have altered the trial's outcome. Wilson argues that the state failed to notify her that Sheila Irby would testify about a statement made by Jimmy Fry regarding James White's presence on Boulder Circle. However, this issue was raised during Irby’s cross-examination, where Wilson's counsel attempted to impeach Irby using a taped conversation that included the relevant statement, indicating Wilson was aware of Irby’s potential testimony prior to trial. Consequently, Wilson cannot claim a Brady violation regarding this matter. Additionally, Wilson contends that the state did not inform her that James White would alter his testimony about the date he received a .38 caliber pistol from her and Peggy Lowe. While White initially stated he obtained the gun on May 19, 1992, he later testified it was May 20, 1992. However, Wilson did not preserve this issue for appeal, as objections should be made at the time of questioning, not afterward, and a motion to exclude testimony made after a witness has testified does not preserve the issue for appellate review. Even if preserved, Wilson failed to demonstrate that the discrepancy in dates was material or exculpatory, as White had already confessed to the murder, and there was no evidence linking the pistol to the crime. Wilson also challenges the court’s refusal to exclude James Dennison White’s testimony on the grounds that his plea agreement encouraged perjury and was contrary to public policy. Despite extensive cross-examination, Wilson did not move to exclude White's testimony until her motion for judgment of acquittal, which was made after White's testimony and thus not timely. The necessity for a contemporaneous objection to preserve issues for appeal is emphasized by prior case law, indicating no Brady violation occurred and the trial court acted correctly in its rulings. General Motors moved to strike Limpert's testimony as lacking expertise after he had already been dismissed as a witness. This motion should have been made before Limpert testified, and by not doing so, General Motors failed to preserve the issue for review. Similarly, Wilson did not preserve her argument regarding the exclusion of White's testimony based on his plea agreement, which she did not timely raise in the trial court. The credibility of witnesses is for the jury to decide, and defendants have the right to cross-examine witnesses about agreements that may affect their testimony. When an accomplice has a plea bargain with the State, its full terms must be disclosed to the jury, as it relates to the witness's credibility and possible bias. In this case, the jury was informed of White's plea agreement, and Wilson extensively cross-examined him, allowing the jury to consider any potential influences on his testimony. The court did not err in its handling of White's testimony. Furthermore, Wilson argued that Brenda Cerha's testimony, regarding a statement made six years prior to the murder, was irrelevant and prejudicial. However, past acts of hostility by the accused toward the victim are admissible to demonstrate malice and motive, making Cerha's testimony relevant. Remoteness in time of a statement indicating hostility by the appellant towards the deceased affects the statement's weight but not its admissibility. Previous Alabama case law allows for the introduction of former acts of hostility to demonstrate motive and intent, particularly in domestic situations. The admissibility of evidence is relative and depends on the case's specifics. In the case of Wilson, charged with hiring someone to murder her husband, her statement was admissible to show intent. The court correctly allowed testimony regarding threats made by the accused, irrespective of the time elapsed since those threats, as they indicate a design to commit the crime. Wilson challenged the jury's guilty verdict based on perceived inconsistencies in testimony and a lack of traditional evidence, asserting that her defense theory was plausible. However, credibility assessments are solely the jury's responsibility. The evidence presented established a prima facie case for the capital offense of murder for hire, and the jury’s decisions regarding conflicting evidence are conclusive on appeal, as the appellate court does not act as a fact-finder. Wilson's post-conviction relief petition under Rule 32 was denied by the circuit court after a hearing regarding her claims of newly discovered evidence and testimony recantation by James White. Wilson asserted that White had recanted his trial testimony, arguing that he confessed to another inmate, Mike McCulley, that Wilson was innocent and that he acted alone in the murder. McCulley testified about White's statements and presented a notarized affidavit allegedly signed by White, claiming both he and Wilson were innocent and that his prior testimony was fabricated to satisfy the police. The court evaluated the credibility of these claims, emphasizing that the burden was on Wilson to convincingly demonstrate that White's recantation was truthful and would have altered the trial's outcome. White, however, refused to testify during the Rule 32 Hearing, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, which created doubt about the circumstances surrounding the affidavit's creation. The court noted the necessity of determining the truthfulness of both White's original testimony and any potential recantation, considering evidence from the initial trial, which included credible testimonies supporting White's original statements. The court admitted the affidavit but expressed caution in weighing the recantation evidence, primarily stemming from a convicted felon. Overall, the court found insufficient proof to grant a new trial based on the presented claims. White has been sentenced to life in prison after the Petitioner's trial, and any recantation from him has occurred only after he received a plea bargain with the State to testify against the Petitioner. The court finds recanting testimony to be inherently unreliable, referencing *Peoples v. State*, and concludes that White's trial testimony was credible based on other witness testimonies and inferences drawn. The court determines that White's recantation does not convincingly prove his earlier testimony was false, declaring the allegations in White's affidavit as not credible and false. The Petitioner has not met the burden of proof required for relief based on White's recantation. According to the standard established in *Ex parte Frazier*, to grant a new trial for alleged perjured testimony, the court must be satisfied that: (1) the witness's trial testimony was false; (2) the jury would likely have reached a different verdict had they known the truth; (3) evidence proving the witness's perjury was discovered post-trial; and (4) this evidence could not have been uncovered with reasonable diligence during the trial. The court finds that the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the first criterion. Further, recantation by prosecution witnesses does not automatically warrant a new trial; such decisions depend on the specific case circumstances. The court emphasizes the unreliability of recanting testimony and asserts its duty to deny a new trial if the truth of such testimony is not satisfactorily established. Generally, recanting witness statements are given little weight, and new trials based on such recantations are only granted in extraordinary situations. The discretion to grant or deny a new trial on newly discovered evidence lies largely with the trial judge, whose decision is reviewed deferentially by appellate courts, which uphold the trial court's findings unless there is an abuse of discretion. In Robinson v. State, the trial court serves as the factfinder during a motion for a new trial, necessitating the court's belief in newly discovered evidence for a new trial to be granted. The appellate court does not assess the truthfulness of testimony or witness credibility, maintaining a presumption in favor of the trial court's factual findings, which will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. The court affirmed the denial of a new trial for Wilson regarding the alleged recantation of James Dennison White's testimony. Additionally, Wilson argued that the state failed to provide her with the notes of Dr. Lawrence Maier, a psychologist who evaluated White. Stipulations revealed that Dr. Maier was appointed for a mental competency evaluation and had submitted his report to relevant parties, including Wilson's attorneys. However, his handwritten notes were not distributed to the District Attorney, the court, or Wilson's defense team prior to her trial. The parties stipulated that the prosecution and police were unaware of Dr. Maier's notes until defense counsel revealed them during the Rule 32 proceeding. Attorney Charles Hooper testified that these notes contained a statement by James White regarding his time at the Wilson residence, which contradicted his trial testimony. Although Hooper met with Dr. Maier prior to the trial to discuss White's evaluation, he did not identify this discrepancy at that time. The court ruled that the prosecution did not withhold evidence and that no prosecution member was aware of the notes until after the trial. The court concluded that even if the inconsistency in White's testimony had been presented during cross-examination, it would not have significantly altered the jury's verdict, as there was substantial credible evidence linking the Petitioner to the crime. The court further found no evidence that Dr. Maier acted as an agent of the prosecution, as his notes were generated at the request of White's defense counsel and were not under the prosecution's control before the trial. The court emphasized that the defense was aware of the evaluation report's importance and could have requested the notes, which were not newly discovered evidence. In Parker v. State, the court determined that the appellant's rights under Brady v. Maryland were not violated, as the prosecutor is not obligated to disclose evidence not in their possession. Although the prosecutor's good faith is irrelevant under Brady, the prosecution must possess the information requested. The court ruled that the prosecution did not withhold evidence from Wilson. Wilson also argued that the trial court erred by allowing James White to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a post-conviction petition hearing. White's counsel attempted to question him about an affidavit in which he recanted part of his trial testimony. The court permitted White to invoke his privilege, recognizing that compelling him to testify could force him to admit to perjury. The court cited the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and referenced similar precedents, noting that individuals may refuse to answer questions that could incriminate them in future proceedings. The trial court's decision to uphold White's Fifth Amendment privilege was deemed correct. Appellant Wilson's conviction for capital murder and her life sentence without parole are upheld, alongside the affirmation of the denial for post-conviction relief. All judges concur except for Judge Patterson, who dissents. Judge Patterson argues that the state did not adequately corroborate the testimony of accomplice James Dennison White, as mandated by Alabama Code § 12-21-222. The state acknowledges White's status as an accomplice and concedes that the conviction relies entirely on his testimony. According to the statute, a felony conviction cannot be based solely on an accomplice's testimony unless corroborated by additional evidence linking the defendant to the crime. This requirement is in place to protect the innocent from potential false accusations by accomplices seeking leniency. The dissent emphasizes that corroborative evidence must be substantive, inconsistent with the accused's innocence, and must do more than merely raise suspicion of guilt. Wilson raised this issue through a timely motion for judgment of acquittal, which the court reviews based only on the evidence presented at the time of the motion, considering it in the light most favorable to the state's case. White testified regarding his relationship with Peggy Lowe, the appellant's twin sister, while working at Vincent Elementary School in Alabama. He began having phone conversations with her in late 1991, during which she confided about her marital issues and expressed her desire for her husband to be harmed. White indicated he could facilitate this. In early 1992, Lowe mentioned a "friend" wanting to harm her husband, later identified as Betty Wilson. They agreed on a plan to kill Dr. Wilson for $5,000, with an upfront payment of $2,500, which Lowe provided. White detailed his financial activities, including using a portion of the cash for personal expenses. He recounted an incident on May 15, 1992, when he and Lowe had a sexual encounter, after which he asked for money to carry out the murder. Lowe instructed him to find cash in her sister's car at Lake Guntersville State Park, which he did. Subsequently, he attempted to execute the plan but observed a blue truck at the Wilson residence, indicating their son was home, and he did not proceed with the attack. Days later, both Wilson and Lowe contacted him about the murder, with Lowe emphasizing the need to complete it before May 24 to avoid financial repercussions. On May 20, 1992, Lowe instructed him to meet her at Logan Martin Dam. White testified about a series of events leading up to an attack on Dr. Wilson. He recounted meeting Lowe at Logan Martin Dam, where Lowe handed him a gun wrapped in a white sweater, which White later concealed in a hole on his back porch. Following a phone call with Lowe, White traveled to Huntsville on May 21, 1992, to carry out a plan against Dr. Wilson, feeling hesitant to use the gun due to his experiences in Vietnam. While waiting at Dr. Wilson's office, he decided against the attack due to the presence of people. He later met Wilson at a fast food restaurant where she provided him with $100. After checking into a motel, White communicated with Wilson and Lowe, who expressed care for him. He surveilled the Wilson home and arranged for Wilson to pick him up, as he wanted to avoid using his recognizable truck. Upon arriving at the Wilson home, Wilson gave White $40 and instructed him on the plan. White entered the house intending to create a robbery scene but ultimately took no valuables. When Dr. Wilson returned home, an altercation ensued where White attacked him, but he later blacked out and could not recall the stabbing, only remembering waking up in the woods behind the house. Testimony revealed that the individual walked back to the house after being advised by Wilson to leave through the woods. Upon returning, he entered Wilson's car, which drove him to his truck at the mall. While in the back seat, he covered himself with clothing and bags, including a pink one, and noticed a bank bag. After being dropped off, he purchased items, including beer, and drove home. The individual intended to retrieve contract money from a bag Lowe was to leave in her garage. On the following Sunday, he went to Lowe's home but found no money there. A neighbor witnessed his visit, prompting him to ask the neighbor to inform the Lowes he had come for his ladder and painting supplies left in the garage. The state presented multiple witnesses to corroborate this testimony, emphasizing that corroboration only needs to be slight and that circumstantial evidence can connect the accused to the crime. The court should consider the cumulative effect of the independent evidence across four categories: motive, threats, suspicious conduct, and indications of consciousness of guilt. Regarding motive, evidence was presented showing the substantial value of Dr. Wilson's estate, estimated at over $6.3 million, with the bulk designated for Betty Wilson in his will. Additionally, Jo Anne Chiri, who worked with Dr. Wilson, recounted Wilson's negative remarks about him and her desire to be a respected widow rather than seek a divorce, suggesting a deteriorating relationship prior to the murder. Brenda McDowell, Dr. Wilson's bookkeeper, testified that Wilson expressed anger over their prior meeting and indicated a complete emotional disconnection from her husband. M.A.L., a close friend from AA, noted Wilson's critical remarks about her husband, including wishful thoughts about his death, and mentioned Wilson's affair with a man in New York. L.L., Wilson's AA sponsor, confirmed the affair, stating Wilson was in love with the man. E.F., another AA member, revealed a five-year affair with Wilson that ended shortly before the murder. Shirley Green, a housekeeper, testified that Wilson disliked her husband and married him for financial reasons, and that they lived in separate bedrooms. The text discusses the legal principle that motive alone does not suffice as corroborative evidence; however, it can be combined with other evidence connecting the accused to the crime. The prosecution presented additional corroborative evidence through threats made by Wilson. Brenda Cerha recounted a conversation where Wilson expressed a desire to kill her husband and sought assistance, suggesting a motive linked to wanting to be a widow rather than facing a divorce. However, the court found this conversation to be too remote and uncertain to be considered direct corroborative evidence of Wilson's involvement in the murder. Wilson was intoxicated during a conversation related to her case, and Cerha, who had a drug problem, did not take it seriously. The conversation lacked any credible evidence linking Wilson to her husband's murder. The state presented several suspicious behaviors as potential connections to the crime, including the discovery of Wilson's gun at White's house, a library book checked out in Wilson's name found with White, Wilson's misleading explanation to her roommate about being called away from an AA meeting, and her peculiar interactions following Dr. Wilson's death. Witness statements indicated that Wilson acted strangely after news of White's arrest and that her attire on the murder day was unusual for her. However, the evidence presented was deemed insufficient to establish a legitimate connection to the murder, as it merely raised suspicion without contradicting Wilson's innocence. Specifically, the presence of her gun at White's house and other behaviors cited were not considered corroborative evidence linking her to the crime. Overall, the evidence fell short of substantiating a conviction, as it did not convincingly connect Wilson to her husband's murder. Wilson's indirect contact with White prior to her husband's murder, including the delivery of a book at Wilson's request and her false claim about leaving an AA meeting, raises suspicion but does not constitute corroborative evidence of guilt. Under legal precedent, evidence must be substantive, inconsistent with the accused's innocence, and provide more than mere suspicion. The court referenced cases where proximity to an accomplice alone was insufficient for corroboration, emphasizing that unusual circumstances could meet corroboration requirements. The prosecution's reliance on Irby's testimony of seeing Wilson near her home at 5:10 p.m. is undermined by a timeline showing Wilson at various locations shortly before and after that time, which lacks independent verification of her connection to White on the day of the murder. Overall, the lack of corroboration beyond White's testimony and the normality of Wilson's presence in the area diminishes the prosecution's case. Additionally, evidence indicating consciousness of guilt may serve as corroboration, although it is not explicitly addressed in this context. Consciousness of guilt as evidence must relate directly to the offense charged; irrelevant conduct should be disregarded by the trial court. In the case at hand, the state argues that Wilson demonstrated consciousness of guilt during her interviews with police by lying about past affairs, her knowledge of her husband’s will, and her whereabouts on the day of the murder. Specific instances cited include her failure to disclose recent affairs, a pair of shoes purchased on the murder day, and her attendance at an AA meeting. Additionally, inconsistencies in her statements about knowing a key individual, White, were highlighted. However, the analysis concludes that these actions do not sufficiently connect Wilson to the crime, as many of the alleged lies lack relevance to the offense. While her failure to mention indirect contact with White raises suspicion, it is not substantive enough to establish a link to the murder. Furthermore, Wilson's response regarding her knowledge of White indicates no outright denial. The state’s reliance on telephone records to corroborate White’s testimony is also critiqued; without context provided by White, these records do not substantiate any connection to the crime. Overall, the majority's conclusions regarding the evidence supporting the notion that Wilson paid White to murder her husband are questioned, emphasizing the need for stronger corroboration of accomplice testimony. The majority's conclusion that there is sufficient corroborative evidence linking appellant Wilson to the crime of hiring someone to kill Dr. Wilson is deemed incorrect. The dissent argues that without White's testimony, there is no evidence that connects Wilson to the crime in a manner inconsistent with his innocence. A review of the evidence, aside from White's testimony, reveals it primarily supports White's narrative without establishing a direct link to Wilson. The dissent emphasizes that an accomplice cannot corroborate their own testimony, referencing established case law (Evans v. State). The remaining evidence is characterized as either remote, insubstantial, or merely suggestive of motive, failing to provide a strong enough basis for a conviction. The dissent concludes that the evidence does not bridge the gap between mere suspicion and a reasonable inference of guilt, aligning with precedents set by the Alabama Supreme Court. Additionally, it holds that the trial court's denial of Wilson's motion for acquittal was a reversible error. The dissenting judge opposes the majority's overruling of the application for rehearing regarding both Wilson's murder-for-hire conviction and her post-conviction relief petition. The considerations advocating for a rehearing include: the absence of corroborative evidence for accomplice James White's testimony; the acquittal of the co-defendant who facilitated the alleged murder; White's recantation of his testimony; and doubts regarding the trial court's and the majority's evaluation of this recantation. There is a dissent regarding the denial of the appellant's motion under Ala. R.App. P. 39(k), asserting that the court's opinion lacks sufficient facts to grasp all pertinent issues. The dissent supports granting this motion and adopting the appellant's proposed facts. It emphasizes that the state did not adequately corroborate White's testimony, warranting a judgment of acquittal. Additional context includes that the case was moved to Tuscaloosa County, with many witnesses anonymized for confidentiality due to their Alcoholics Anonymous affiliation. White, who had a plea agreement contingent on providing truthful testimony against co-defendants Peggy Lowe and Betty Wilson, later recanted, claiming Wilson had no involvement in her husband’s murder. Dr. Wilson died from blunt force trauma and stab wounds. The majority's opinion on the admissibility of Cerha's testimony to indicate Wilson's intent is challenged, as it is deemed too remote to corroborate White's claims. The entire record, original opinion, and briefs were made available for judges Long and Cobb, who were not part of the initial decision.