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.
Tillman v. State
Citations: 89 So. 3d 832; 2011 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 74; 2011 WL 4511229Docket: CR-09-0732
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; September 30, 2011; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Timothy Dane Tillman was convicted of murder under Alabama Code 13A-6-2 for killing his wife, Janet, and of second-degree criminal possession of a forged instrument under Alabama Code 13A-9-6. He received a life sentence for the murder and a consecutive 10-year sentence for the forgery charge. Tillman and Janet married in December 1983 and had two daughters, later moving from Florida to Minnesota and finally to Alabama in 2000. While in Minnesota, Tillman pleaded guilty to solicitation of a prostitute. In Alabama, he became pastor of Vincent Revival Center but needed to complete credentialing applications, which he did not fully pursue. Before Janet's death, Tillman engaged in an affair with a woman in Mississippi, falsely presenting himself as a divorced Navy officer under a different name. He proposed to this woman in August 2005 but also communicated affectionately with Janet in September. Tillman organized a turkey shoot fundraiser for hurricane victims and, following the event on October 22, handled firearms with church members. Janet died from a gunshot wound on October 26, 2005, while they were carrying shotguns into the parsonage; Tillman claimed the fatal shot was accidental while adjusting the guns he was holding. Testimony presented by the State questioned the likelihood of the shooting occurring as described by Tillman, while a defense expert suggested it was consistent with an accidental shooting. On January 31, 2006, a $5,000.47 check, purportedly endorsed by Janet, was deposited into Tillman and Janet's joint account. This check was an unsolicited loan offer sent after Janet's death and later determined to be forged by Tillman, who admitted to the forgery during police interviews. He claimed the funds were used for Janet’s headstone and family expenses. On appeal, Tillman raised five issues, including the admission of prior unrelated convictions and the consolidation of his murder and forgery charges. The court focused on the consolidation issue, determining that the trial court erred in consolidating the charges. Tillman, initially charged separately, opposed the consolidation, arguing that the forgery was irrelevant to the murder case. The State contended the forgery was part of Tillman’s motive for the murder. According to Alabama Rule of Criminal Procedure 13.3, offenses may be joined if they are of similar character or connected in their commission. The court noted that misjoinder of offenses requires reversal only if it causes actual prejudice affecting the jury's verdict. The appellate review concluded that the consolidation of the murder and forgery charges was improper and warranted a reversal. The State sought to consolidate the murder charge and the possession of a forged instrument charge, arguing they were part of a common plan and connected through a series of events. However, it did not argue that the crimes were of the same character, which would have been invalid as they were dissimilar, remote in time, and lacked overlapping evidence. Tillman contested the consolidation on appeal, asserting there was no connection between the crimes. Alabama case law supports consolidation only when offenses occur simultaneously or closely in time and as part of a sequence of events. In this case, the murder occurred on October 26, 2005, while the forgery took place on January 31, 2006, indicating a significant time gap. Previous Alabama rulings upheld consolidation when offenses were closely tied in time and nature, unlike the current charges. Additionally, while the State claimed the murder was committed for insurance proceeds, the subsequent forgery was unforeseeable and unrelated to the murder. The lack of connection and the extended time between the crimes indicated that the trial court erred in consolidating the charges under Rule 13.3(a)(2). Furthermore, consolidation under the 'common scheme or plan' provision of Rule 13.3(a)(3) was also unjustified, as it is restricted by the rule against admitting collateral crimes evidence. Multiple offenses by the same defendant cannot be consolidated for trial under the 'common scheme or plan' provision of Rule 13.3 unless evidence for each offense is admissible under this exception to the collateral crimes exclusionary rule. This exception applies only when there is uncertainty regarding the perpetrator's identity. In this case, there was no dispute about the identity of the perpetrator; Tillman confessed to both the forgery of his deceased wife's name and to murdering her. The trial's central issue was Tillman's intent during the shooting, with the State arguing he intended to murder his wife, while Tillman claimed the shooting was accidental. Due to the lack of ambiguity regarding the perpetrator's identity, evidence from one crime was not relevant to the other, making consolidation inappropriate. The court must now consider whether the improper joinder resulted in actual prejudice to Tillman. He presented significant evidence, including expert testimony, to support his claim of accidental shooting. However, the jury was also exposed to inflammatory evidence regarding the forgery, potentially overshadowing the weaker evidence concerning his intent to kill. This presented a risk that the jury might unjustly equate his actions in the forgery with guilt in the murder case. The court agreed that the evidence of forgery was considerably stronger and more prejudicial, likely leading the jury to overlook weaknesses in the State's murder case. Consequently, Tillman experienced actual prejudice from the improper joinder, necessitating the reversal of both convictions and a remand. Additionally, the court briefly addressed concerns raised by Tillman regarding statements made during his videotaped interrogations. He argued that the trial court erred by allowing the jury to hear allegations about his alleged molestation of a daughter, substance abuse, inappropriate use of church property, theft from his daughter's trust fund, extramarital affairs, and visits to a strip club, which might resurface if he is retried. The State contends that Tillman's arguments were not preserved for appellate review and, alternatively, that they lack merit. The court finds the preservation issue moot due to the reversal of the convictions. If the State intends to introduce evidence of collateral bad acts in future proceedings, such evidence should be evaluated under Rule 404(b) of the Alabama Rules of Evidence. The circuit court’s judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Judges Kellum and Houston concur, while Judge Burke dissents, joined by Judge Windom. Judge Joiner recused himself, and retired Justice Gorman Houston was appointed to the case. The case was reassigned to Presiding Judge Welch. The transcript from the hearing regarding the admissibility of prior bad acts is referenced in the supplemental record. The State's brief incorrectly asserts the standard of appellate review for the consolidation of charges, suggesting that Tillman must demonstrate "the most compelling prejudice" for a reversal. However, the issue is whether the trial court properly consolidated offenses from separate indictments, not the standard for severing charges in a single indictment. The standard for denial of a motion to sever requires a higher degree of demonstrated prejudice than that applicable in this case.