scott, christie michelle

Before trial, Scott moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the State had failed to disclose the outlets that had been taken from Mason's bedroom. 1787.) Scott does not argue that Alabama's method of execution is unconstitutional because it is cruel and unusual. Indeed, we have frequently held that a court does not err in instructing the jury that it should avoid the influence of any passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. Vanpelt v. State, 74 So.3d 32, 93 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). The state in this case is being allowed to show this evidence as to plan, motive, and identity. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982))). based on experience alone and need not have any special education or training.). 125.). The court found two aggravating circumstances: that Scott murdered her son Mason for pecuniary gain and that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel as compared to other capital murders. Carroll, 852 So.2d at 836. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), is considered to be impartial even though it may be more conviction prone than a non-death-qualified jury. Yarborough also testified that Scott said that she didn't know how someone could be so unlucky as to have two fires in three years and I hope it ain't that one [the fire marshal] from Colbert County. 86061.) Best Match Powered by Whitepages Premium AGE -- Michael R Christie Atlanta, GA (Dunwoody) Aliases Christie Michael View Full Report Addresses Adair Ln, Atlanta, GA Scott further argues that the circuit court used information unavailable to the jury as a basis for increasing the weight it gave to one of the aggravating circumstances. Contra People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.3d 771, 281 Cal.Rptr. ]: Certain crimes just make me sick, you know. 911, 116 L.Ed.2d 811 (1992); People v. Stallings, 211 Ill.App.3d 1032, 156 Ill.Dec. 1895.) The evidence tended to show that in the early morning hours of August 16, 2008, a fire was set in the Scott house and that Mason died as a result of the fire. The sentencing judge had the opportunity to view the family members as they testified in the penalty phasean opportunity that this Court lacksand he specifically found that the family members believed that Scott was innocent of the charges. Committing an intentional murder for pecuniary gain is an aggravating circumstance defined in 13A549(6), Ala.Code 1975. The critical factor is whether the person who made the statement is still under the influence of the emotions arising from the startling event. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984); Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 95 S.Ct. Scott further argues that the circuit court erred in allowing testimony of Scott's post-fire conduct which, she says, was irrelevant and prejudicial. The appellant, Christie Michelle Scott, was indicted for three counts of capital murder in The TV was off and Noah Riley was still awake. The Jack and Jill bathroom light was on and the night-light played andplugged into the wall. The circuit court did not err in excusing A.C. outside Scott's presence for hardship reasons under 121663, Ala.Code 1975. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has stated: By its very terms, Rule 404(b) addresses other crimes, wrongs, or acts. (emphasis added). All right. The jury recommended, by a vote of 7 to 5, that Scott be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Dr. Franco further testified that if a fire had started in outlet number 1, you would expect to see bare copper wire and melted insulation, which was not present in that receptacle. She merely stated that arrangements would have to be made. Christie Scott. 998.) Thus, the requested instruction was more stringent than Alabama law. Scott's father, Donald Bray, testified that he did not ask Scott what she had done when he arrived at the scene but that he asked where his babies where. for cause because, she argues, K.B. One of three alternative counts was that Ms. Scott is indicted for, as far as a motive, for pecuniary gain. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), overruled on other grounds, Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. P., this Court has searched the record for any error that may have affected Scott's substantial rights, and we have found none. In December 2005, he said, the Scotts increased the coverage to $139,000the maximum amount it could be increased without a new appraisal. WebIn the final appeal, Christie Michelle Scott was declared the murderer of her six-year-old son, named Mason Scott. This Court may take appropriate action when the error has or probably has adversely affected the substantial rights of the appellant. Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. Whenever a witness in a criminal trial identifies a physical piece of evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime, the evidence shall be submitted to the jury or court for whatever weight the jury or court may deem proper. See also Woods v. State, 13 So.3d 1, 33 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). Several years later in Ex parte McNair, 653 So.2d 353 (Ala.1994), the Supreme Court limited its holding in Thomas and stated: McNair did not ask to see, and was not denied access to, the prosecutor's notes that had been prepared by law enforcement officials. Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 5758, 109 S.Ct. Alabama Courts have consistently held likewise. See also, C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, 69.01(1) (3d ed.1977). You were also asked some questions about the death penalty. Circumstantial evidence is in no way considered inferior evidence and is entitled to the same weight as direct evidence provided it points to the guilt of the accused. Cochran v. State, 500 So.2d 1161, 1177 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), affirmed in pertinent part, reversed in part on other grounds, Ex parte Cochran, 500 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1985).. 30, 32, 521 S.E.2d 27, 30 (1999) (Also, an expert's credentials are relevant to the weight and credit to be given to his testimony by the jury.); Khairkhwa v. Obama, 793 F.Supp.2d 1, 11 (D.D.C.2011) (There is no requirement that an expert possess formal education, and an expert may be qualified on the basis of his or her practical experience.); State v. Hollingsworth, 160 Wis.2d 883, 896, 467 N.W.2d 555, 560 (1991) (A person may be an expert under [W.S.A. The circuit court's order was consistent with the provisions of 13A547(e), Ala.Code 1975, and with our holding in Harris v. State, 2 So.3d 880 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). In addressing a similar argument, the North Carolina Supreme Court found no error and stated: Although the prosecutor's arguments that the victim might have married and had children was speculative, it was not excessive. Scott next argues that the circuit court erred in allowing Deputy James Edwards of the Alabama State Fire Marshal's Office to testify about Scott's demeanor during her interview. 4063. 2. The Court: Are you talking about the deceased child's grandpa? ), cert. Presumably, in a case involving a closer question as to guilt or innocence, the jurors would have been more ready to infer that the lost evidence was exculpatory. Later, in Hale v. State, 848 So.2d 224 (Ala.2002), the Supreme Court reexamined its holding in Holton after the 1995 codification of 122113, Ala.Code 1975. Christie is related to Keith Eugene Scott and Dianne Edith Scott as well as 3 additional people. Davidson also testified that Scott was fully dressed and that at one point while they were in the ambulance Scott patted her pant pocket and pulled out a cell phone and said: I had my cell phone the whole time. What have you done to my babies? (R. To fall within the scope of Rule 404(b), an act need not be criminal so long as it tends to impugn a defendant's character. United States v. Rawle, 845 F.2d 1244, 1247 (4th Cir.1988). (C.R. The record shows that Melinda Swinney, a stylist in a hair salon at WalMart discount store, testified that on Monday after the Saturday fire she saw Scott. See Giles v. State, 632 So.2d 568, 574 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). Thus, we find no error in the circuit court's actions in regard to juror J.M. The State asserted that no prima facie case of discrimination had been established; however, the State proceeded to give its reasons for striking jurors B.H. The circuit court denied the Batson motion. B.H. 360, 121 L.Ed.2d 272 (1992) ([i]t is worth noting that neither Justice Stevens (concurring in the judgment only) nor Justice Blackmun (dissenting) read the majority opinion in Youngblood as adopting anything short of a flat bad faith requirement, absent which there is no need for any materiality inquiry) (emphasis added). Home Christie Michelle Scott Women on Death Row in United States. These rules apply even where the testimony on redirect examination concerns other criminal conduct by the defendant. Sistrunk, 596 So.2d at 647. [S.S.]: No, sir. As a result of the second fire the Scotts received insurance monies of over $185,000. [C.M. [Prosecutor]: Is that againwhat does that usually infer to you or tell you? Initially, this Court notes that, [i]f the accused's commission of another crime is otherwise competent and admissible under one of the exceptions to the general exclusionary rule, the state may prove his guilt of the other crime by the same kind of evidenceboth circumstantial and directthat would be admissible if the accused were being tried for the other crime. McElroy's Alabama Evidence, supra, at 69.02(5). I punched the screen out. We will do anything we can to try to help in that process. (R. More significantly, the trial judge instructed the jury: If you find that the State has allowed to be destroyed or lost any evidence whose content or quality are in issue, you may infer that the true fact is against the State's interest. As a result, the uncertainty as to what the evidence might have proved was turned to the defendant's advantage. 4256.). denied, 502 U.S. 1047, 112 S.Ct. The record shows that at the beginning of the voir dire process the court stated the following to the entire jury venire: If we can accommodate you in any way, we will. The circuit court complied with Alabama law by setting out its reasons for declining to follow the jury's recommendation. See Dixon v. Hardey, 591 So.2d 3 (Ala.1991); Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala.1989); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala.1988); Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala.1987); Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge ); Mason v. State 536 So.2d 127, 129 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (quoting Uptain ). Therefore, the findings reflected in the jury's verdict alone exposed Waldrop to a range of punishment that had as its maximum the death penalty. In addressing Rule 403, Ala. R. Seven members of the jury, the minimum required by law, voted to impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole and five voted to impose the death sentence. But this did not resolve the case. Davidson telephoned 911 again to inform them that a child was still in the house. 2633.) United States v. Platero, 72 F.3d 806, 814 (10th Cir.1995). Scott also testified that she gave Mason a teaspoon of cough medicine the evening before the fire because he was coughing. Thornton testified that outlet number 3 had been in his possession, that he had sent the outlet to the defense expert, that the outlet was returned to him, that he had until trial believed that the outlet was not from Mason's bedroom, and that he realized after examining all the numerous photographs that the outlet was in fact outlet number 3 from Mason's bedroom. This portion of the circuit court's order did not violate Carroll and was consistent with the provisions of 13A547(e), Ala.Code 1975. Lee Janacek, director of claims for the Woodmen of the World Insurance Company, testified that on August 16, 2008, Scott obtained a third life-insurance policy on Mason in the amount of $100,000. [S.S.]: I would listen to everything. The missing outlet is not relevant to this theory of what caused the fire. Scott was convicted of capital murder for committing an intentional murder for pecuniary gain. 13A545(e), Ala.Code 1975.. 278.) Here, Scott denied starting the fire, and the evidence against Scott was circumstantial. WebScott Christie has prior experience at Foresters Financial, Protective Life, Liberty Mutual Insurance and works in Cincinnati. [E]vidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and those surrounding the presently charged crime exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person. Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d at 668 (quoting Brewer v. State, 440 So.2d 1155, 1161 (Ala.Crim.App.1983)). 1496, 99 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988) ] had held that a trial court need not make a preliminary finding that the government proved the existence of the similar act by the defendant before submitting the similar acts evidence to the jury. at 1537. Age 60s | Bayonne, NJ. After weighing all these circumstances, the circuit court sentenced Scott to death. I picked up Noah Riley, kissed him, told him I loved him, and dropped him out of the window. Thus, if any error occurred, it was invited by defense counsel's actions. ], Furthermore, testimony offered for the purpose of showing motive is always admissible. There was also evidence that Scott was the last individual to leave the house before that fire, that Scott had increased her insurance coverage three months before that fire, and that the smoke alarm had been disconnected when the house was being cleaned. The circuit court held that the statement was admissible under Rule 803(2), Ala. R. Evid. A.K. Can you do that or is that too deeply held a belief for you to put that aside? ), Depending on the degree of the State's culpability for the loss of the evidence, the court may decide that the State should be precluded, on retrial, from introducing any evidence relating to the charred object, see Commonwealth v. Olszewski, 401 Mass. Swinney said that she asked Scott how she was doing and she said: I'm fine. Phone | Current Address | Public Records | Criminal Records. In examining witnesses and in her summation, defense counsel impressed upon the jury the fact that the State failed to preserve the evidence and that the State could have conducted tests that might well have exonerated the defendant. Scott's argument is without merit. It was their opinion that the fire was a closed-cabinet fire because of the high level of carbon monoxide in Mason's blood. This appeal, which is automatic in a case involving the death penalty, followed. Presumably, such jurors would have been struck by GM through the exercise of its peremptory challenges had the full arsenal of such challenges been available against jurors who remained after correct rulings on the challenges for cause. Scott next asserts that the prosecutor made improper victim-impact statements in his closing arguments in the guilt phase of Scott's trial that were immaterial to any issue of guilt and that amounted to error. denied, 474 U.S. 865, 106 S.Ct. Scott asserts that because the record showed probable prejudice in regard to juror A.K., the circuit court erred in denying her motion to remove A.K. The Supreme Court found that Carroll's lack of a significant criminal history, the victim's family requests to spare Carroll's life, and the jury's 10 to 2 recommendation tip [ed] the scales in favor of a sentence of life imprisonment. He said the following concerning the outlets: The plugs appeared to have external damage. (C. When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a Batson motion, this court gives deference to the trial court and will reverse a trial court's decision only if the ruling is clearly erroneous. Yancey v. State, 813 So.2d 1, 3 (Ala.Crim.App.2001). After detailing Munger's qualifications, the Supreme Court stated: [W]e are persuaded that Munger possessed the qualifications to testify as an expert in matters of fire science and technology. 643 So.2d at 1343. Second, these jurors, it must be determined, could not have laid aside these preformed opinions and render[ed] a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. at 723, 81 S.Ct. was not subject to a challenge for cause. He went to the Scott residence and examined the fire scene. To do so was reversible error. Any conflicting evidence presents a jury question that is not subject to review on appeal so long as the State's evidence establishes a prima facie case, an appellate court must accept as true the evidence introduced by the State, accord the State all legitimate inferences from that evidence, and consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Later, the following occurred: The Court: The fact that Mr. Copeland may be a witness in the case, do you feel like that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial? 1 Wigmore, [Evidence ] 173, at 632 [3d ed 1940) ].. ), [J]urors who give responses that would support a challenge for cause may be rehabilitated by subsequent questioning by the prosecutor or the court. Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 855 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). She said that she tried to put in the code six times. In this case, unlike Bethea, the jurors who ultimately were selected fell in the category of jurors who would likely have been the subject of peremptory challenges had such challenges been available. [Prosecutor]: What I want to do is ask you just a little bit about your views on the death penalty. Evidence of the 2006 fires was properly admitted under the motive exception to the general exclusionary rule. for cause because, she says, L.H. The circuit court indicated that it was going to deny the motion and allow the defense expert to examine the outlet before he testified. Scott cannot establish that the State suppressed evidence, that that evidence was favorable to Scott, or that the evidence was material to Scott's defense. 369.) Davidson's boyfriend, Brian Copeland, testified that Scott came to the door of the house he shared with Davidson in the early morning hours of August 16 and told them that her house was on fire. When it is decided that prior crimes or acts of the accused are admissible to prove a proper purpose asserted under Rule 404(b), the question naturally arises as to what degree of proof is required to show such a prior criminal act. See Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 24146, 108 S.Ct. Even with the jury's recommendation, the aggravating factors clearly outweigh the mitigating factors. Now, most of your instructions were the intentional spoliation of evidence. He makes two separate arguments in support of this claim. Outlet number 3 was located between Noah's bed and the window but had been misidentified as coming from another room in the house. Nelson v. State, 440 So.2d 1130, 1132 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). And I don'tas the person I know him to be, I know him to be fair. Where there wasthere was fire coming out of the window in the boys' room and going over the top of the roof. Scott did not object to Greenhill's testimony. initially indicated that he thought a person who killed a child should be given the death penalty, upon further questioning C.M. Later, in General Motors Corps. Of course, prejudice, in this context, means more than simply damage to the opponent's cause. Wilson v. State, [Ms. CR070684, March 23, 2012] So.3d , (Ala.Crim.App.2012) (opinion on return to remand). 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), citing Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1038, 104 S.Ct. A check from Alfa had been issued to the Scotts for $25,000 after Mason's death, but Alfa declined to pay the remaining amount because Scott had omitted information concerning Mason's health and his medications on the application for the $50,000 policy. Thornton's custody until May 22, 2009, when it was mailed to one of the defense experts. Accordingly, we find no error in regard to this claim. 1312.) One of Scott's experts was given an opportunity to examine the outlet but failed to do so. The Supreme Court stated: Section 122113, Ala.Code 1975, provides: Physical evidence connected with or collected in the investigation of a crime shall not be excluded from consideration by a jury or court due to a failure to prove the chain of custody of the evidence. [Defense counsel]: We object to what is usually inferred. Not one of these qualities has been exalted over the others, and it has been said that [e]xperience and practical knowledge may qualify one to make technical judgments as readily as formal education. . See also Gwin v. State, 425 So.2d 500, 504 (Ala.Cr.App.1982) (appellant's claim that judge had arbitrarily excused potential jurors was without merit). 749, 519 N.E.2d 587, 592 (1988), or it may conclude that an adverse inference instruction similar to the one given in Youngblood is sufficient to ensure fairness to the appellant, see Thorne v. Department of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 133132 (Alaska 1989); State v. Youngblood, 844 P.2d at 1157; State v. Gonzalez, 206 Conn. 213, 537 A.2d 460, 466 (1988); Tinsley v. Jackson, 771 S.W.2d 331, 332 (Ky.1989)..

Lancaster, New York Police Blotter, Tv Shows Set In Washington State, Soperton, Ga Mugshots, Bamboo Loans Payment Holiday, Articles S