Chatom v. State

Citations: 591 So. 2d 101; 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1612; 1990 WL 187002Docket: 1 Div. 114

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; September 21, 1990; Alabama; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jere Chatom, the appellant, is appealing two second-degree murder convictions. Despite being indigent and having appointed counsel, no brief has been filed, prompting the court to remand the case to determine if the appeal has been abandoned and, if not, to appoint counsel. A return to the court is required within 90 days. Chatom was initially convicted in 1976 for murdering two Mobile County sheriff deputies and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was reversed on appeal but later affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court. After petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded his conviction in 1988, citing ineffective assistance of counsel. During a retrial in 1989, the state consolidated the indictments, leading to Chatom's conviction for two counts of second-degree murder and concurrent life sentences, with credit for prior time served. Evidence presented at trial indicated that on November 17, 1975, Chatom and an accomplice, Michael Wilson, were pursued by Deputy Kelso after they attempted to evade arrest. During the chase, Chatom fired a shotgun at Kelso, damaging his patrol car. Following the incident, deputies responding to the scene found Kelso's colleagues, Beck and Stolz, dead from gunfire, while Morgan was wounded. Wilson was also killed, with forensic testimony indicating his fatal gunshot wound was not self-inflicted.

The appellant denied involvement in the deaths of Beck and Stolz and claims that the trial court erred by denying a motion for mistrial after the prosecutor referenced the appellant's drug use during rebuttal. The prosecutor's comments mentioned that two individuals, who were not the appellant, were using drugs, which the defense argued was unrelated to the case. The defense counsel objected, asserting that the prosecutor's remarks introduced prejudicial information not pertinent to the charges. The trial court acknowledged the objection but allowed the remarks, indicating they could be addressed later. The law states that comments made by the prosecution must be relevant and based on admissible evidence, and evidence of unrelated offenses is generally inadmissible. The prosecution's remarks were deemed not a proper response to the defense's opening statement, leading to the argument that they were 'grossly improper and highly prejudicial,' which could warrant reversal of the trial's outcome. The excerpt references several legal precedents that support the inadmissibility of evidence concerning separate offenses in relation to the charges at hand.

The court found that a statement about offenses not charged in the indictment was not harmless error, as it likely prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial. Consequently, the case was reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court for Mobile County. The appellant challenged the trial court’s denial of a Batson motion, asserting that the prosecution improperly struck all 11 black jurors from the venire. Although the appellant is a white male, he has standing to contest these strikes based on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Powers v. Ohio, which allows defendants to object to race-based juror exclusions. The trial court had dismissed the Batson objection, lacking any explanation for the exclusion of the black jurors. Had the initial issue not led to a reversal, the case would have required a Batson hearing. The appellant also argued that his rights were violated when the prosecution stated that he could not be compelled to testify. While defense counsel emphasized the importance of hearing both sides during jury selection, the prosecutor's comments were a response to these remarks. Despite the potential impropriety of the prosecutor's comments regarding the appellant's decision not to testify, they were deemed a reply to the defense's assertions.

Replies in kind from the prosecution are generally permissible and are subject to the discretion of the trial court, which is afforded wide latitude in determining the legitimacy of counsel's arguments. When defense counsel opens a subject through their remarks, the prosecution is allowed to respond, making previously improper comments potentially harmless. In the reviewed case, the prosecutor's comments were deemed a legitimate reply to defense arguments, and no abuse of discretion was found by the trial judge.

The appellant argued that the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony regarding the relative positions of the parties during the shooting of two deputies, claiming it invaded the jury's province. However, this case was distinguished from previous cases, such as Smith v. State, where the defense claimed the shooting was accidental. The appellant's defense was an alibi, asserting he was not at the crime scene, which allowed for the relevance of the expert's testimony regarding positions. The distinctions in the nature of the defenses led the court to conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing the testimony, as it did not infringe upon the appellant's substantial rights.

The trial court correctly permitted the state's expert to testify about the positions of the parties during the shooting. The appellant argued that the introduction of exhibits 21 and 22, written statements by the appellant, was erroneous since they were introduced after both parties rested but before jury deliberations. However, the court noted that it is within the trial court’s discretion to reopen the case for additional evidence at that stage, citing *Harper v. State*. The appellant also claimed error in the trial court's refusal to give nine of his requested jury charges related to aiding and abetting and accessory liability. The court found that these charges were either redundant with the oral charge given by the court or incorrect statements of law, referencing *Stout v. State*. The refusal to provide the requested charges was deemed appropriate as the jury had been adequately instructed on the relevant legal concepts. The case has been reversed and remanded to the Circuit Court for Mobile County for proceedings consistent with this opinion, with all judges concurring.