Rashad Stoves Appeals
Rashad Stoves Appeals
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
_________________________
CR-14-1687
_________________________
Rashad Stoves
v.
State of Alabama
JOINER, Judge.
1
Stoves was indicted for murder made capital pursuant to
13A-5-40(a)(10), Ala. Code 1975 ("[m]urder wherein two or
CR-14-1687
of felony murder, see 13A-6-2, Ala. Code 1975.2 For the
to be served concurrently.
on Avenue S in Ensley.
Williams for a ride. The three young men got into the
Mims sat behind Harris, who sat in the front passenger's seat.
School; Williams opened his door and leaned his seat forward,
let Poo Poo out the car, once I get ready to lean my seat
said, "Give it up." Williams gave Stoves his cash, drugs, the
Smith & Wesson pistol, and the holster. Stoves hit Williams
in the head twice with the pistol, and Williams grabbed the
3
CR-14-1687
out of the car. Mims, who was standing outside on the
looking."
car into the driveway, and the men sat inside the vehicle for
a few minutes. Scott noticed that all the lights in the house
were turned on and that the front door was open. Antarius
testified:
(R. 1191). Antarius stated that the room had been trashed,
and the bed had been moved to the other side of the room.
Antarius testified that Stoves was the person holding the gun
4
CR-14-1687
and that Antarius recognized the gun to be a "Ruger nine with
to tell Sanford and Scott to get out of the car, but he fell
pants were wet and he was bleeding from his hand." Officer
Brown asked Antarius what was going on, and Antarius replied
5
CR-14-1687
possible robbery in progress at Antarius's address and
thereafter, Antarius ran out, hit the car, and yelled at Scott
and Sanford to "[g]et out of the car!" Scott saw one person
pulled Scott out of the car, hit him with a gun, and told him
6
CR-14-1687
Sanford on the floor inside the front doorway of the house.
Mims told Scott to keep his head down. Scott then saw a third
person run up to the house and heard someone ask "what he shot
him with." Stoves, Mims, and the third person then fled in
Scott told his neighbor he had been robbed, and his neighbor
Officer Campbell pushed the front door of the house open and
pulled out" and "clothes w[ere] all over the place." After
7
CR-14-1687
two additional officers arrived, the four officers cleared the
McCombs arrived, Scott "came off the front porch with white
the back door of his patrol car, and Scott dove in. Scott
told the officers that he had been robbed and that somebody
murders.
8
CR-14-1687
around 4:10 a.m. on January 29, 2012. Officer Finch observed
that there was "a lot of blood" in the back bedroom and a hole
Steele testified that the following items taken from the house
9
CR-14-1687
Scott's cellular telephone was found on the roof of the same
the bullets recovered from the scene and from the victims'
Colt, Cobray, Heckler & Coke, High Point, Kill Tech, Mauser,
10
CR-14-1687
Norenko, Ruger, Springfield, SWD, Tangfolio, Wather, or Estada
brand; the third type of gun was either a Charter Arms, RG, or
Rome brand.
11
CR-14-1687
On appeal, Stoves raises several issues. We address each
in turn.
I.
asks this Court to remand this case for the circuit court to
16.)
12
CR-14-1687
"'Reckless manslaughter is a lesser
included offense of felony murder; it
requires no proof independent of that
necessary to establish felony murder. See
13A-1-9(a)(1)("An offense is an included
one if ... [i]t is established by proof of
the same or fewer than all the facts
required to establish the commission of the
offense charged"). See also Vinson v.
State, 601 So. 2d 196 (Ala. Crim. App.
1992)(it would be impossible to commit the
greater offense without committing the
lesser included offense).'
13
CR-14-1687
convicted. While the appellant
was in fact sentenced only for
the greater offense, his murder
conviction under Count 1 cannot
stand. Section 13A-1-8(b)
provides, in part, as follows:
14
CR-14-1687
incident and, under the facts, resisting
arrest was a lesser included offense of
assault); Pardue v. State, 571 So. 2d 320,
329-30 (Ala. Crim. App. 1989), rev'd on
other grounds, 571 So. 2d 333 (Ala.
1990)(under 13A-1-8(b)(1), the defendant
was erroneously convicted of both first and
second degree theft of property where the
convictions were based on a single theft of
the same property stolen from the same
victim in the same burglary). Compare
McKinney v. State, 511 So. 2d 220, 225
(Ala. 1987)("a single criminal act that
causes injury to more than one person may
constitute more than one offense and may
support more than one prosecution
conviction").'
15
CR-14-1687
II.
brief, p. 16.)
See Hooks v. State, 141 So. 3d 1119 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013).
16
CR-14-1687
to the cases, statutes, other authorities, and parts of the
Taylor v. State, ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2010)
(quoting Scott v. State, ___ So. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. App.
17
CR-14-1687
recently by the Alabama Supreme Court and by this
Court when appropriate. ...'"
2011).
Here, Stoves does not cite the portion of the record that
III.
18
CR-14-1687
As noted above, Stoves filed a motion for a new trial arguing
T.J.J. v. State, 716 So. 2d 258, 260 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998),
19
CR-14-1687
Crim. App. 1992)]; Prather v. City of
Hoover, 585 So. 2d 257, 258 n.1 (Ala. Cr.
App. 1991).'
issue:
"'...'
20
CR-14-1687
claim.
21
CR-14-1687
quoting Faircloth v. State, 471 So. 2d 485, 488
(Ala. Crim. App. 1984), aff'd, 471 So. 2d 493 (Ala.
1985). '"The test used in determining the
sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction is
whether, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prosecution, a rational finder of
fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt."' Nunn v. State, 697 So. 2d 497,
498 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997), quoting O'Neal v. State,
602 So. 2d 462, 464 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). '"When
there is legal evidence from which the jury could,
by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the
trial court should submit [the case] to the jury,
and, in such a case, this court will not disturb the
trial court's decision."' Farrior v. State, 728 So.
2d 691, 696 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (quoting Ward v.
State, 557 So. 2d 848, 850 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)).
'The role of appellate courts is not to say what the
facts are. Our role ... is to judge whether the
evidence is legally sufficient to allow submission
of an issue for decision [by] the jury.' Ex parte
Bankston, 358 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (Ala. 1978)."
Wilson v. State, 142 So. 3d 732, 809 (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).
22
CR-14-1687
reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt;
but rather whether the jury might so
conclude. Harper v. United States, 405
F.2d 185 (5th Cir. 1969); Roberts v. United
States, 416 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1969). The
procedure for appellate review of the
sufficiency of the evidence has been aptly
set out in Odom v. United States, 377 F.2d
853, 855 (5th Cir. 1967):
23
CR-14-1687
"'The sanctity of the jury function demands
that this court never substitute its
decision for that of the jury. Our
obligation is [to] examine the welter of
evidence to determine if there exists any
reasonable theory from which the jury might
have concluded that the defendant was
guilty of the crime charged.' McGlamory,
441 F.2d at 135 and 136."
Cumbo v. State, 368 So. 2d 871, 874-75 (Ala. Crim. App. 1978).
695 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998) (quoting Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d
State, 390 So. 2d 1160, 1167 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)). "'The
24
CR-14-1687
App. 2001), aff'd, 841 So. 2d 292 (Ala. 2002) (quoting Downing
Harris v. State, 854 So. 2d 145, 151 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002).
25
CR-14-1687
43, Ala. Code 1975, provides that "[a] person commits the
millimeter Smith & Wesson and his holster, among other items.
26
CR-14-1687
enter the house, he heard someone ransacking the house and was
and pulled Scott out of the car and forced him to lie face
it up" and then heard a gunshot. The third person who had
left returned and asked Stoves what he had shot Sanford with.
The three men then left in Sanford's car, which was later
suspects.
27
CR-14-1687
Wesson was one of the three types of guns used in the crimes.
house on Avenue S with Mims and Underwood and that they left
in Sanford's vehicle.
28
CR-14-1687
this opinion.
29