301, 95 S.Ct. Ex parte Trawick, 698 So.2d 162, 167-68 (Ala. 1997). I was looking to see if there was a camera in them and couldn't see one." Witnesses told police that Walton had left the gas station with her, and he quickly confessed to his part in the crime, also telling officers that Graham had paid him to do it. did not serve on Graham's jury Graham used her second peremptory strike to remove E.P. )11 In that motion, she argued that the statements should be suppressed because they were involuntary. 3d 206 (Supp. Walton told Graham that the gun was dirty and needed to be cleaned. '"); People v. Merrihew, 755 N.Y.S.2d 462, 463, 301 A.D.2d 970, 971 (2003) ("[T]he criminal action is deemed to have recommenced, thus triggering the speedy trial clock, when a mistrial is declared and a new trial is ordered."); Jones v. State, 846 So.2d 1041, 1045 (Miss. Length of Delay. However, the question is not whether a third party was present with Graham and her husband but whether Graham had any expectation of privacy in the conversation she had with her husband. Based on our review of the instructions in this case, it is clear that the jury was properly instructed that to convict Graham of capital murder they had to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Graham had the specific intent to kill Shea. Certainly, that standard was not met in this case. P. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Graham's capital-murder conviction and her sentence of death. "`"Delays occasioned by the defendant or on his behalf are excluded from the length of the delay and are heavily counted against the defendant in applying the balancing test of Barker."'" The indictment charged: The indictment tracked the language of the statute. Walton said the mother met him at the Columbus Public Library that . Petersen v. State, [Ms. CR-16-0652, January 11, 2019] ___ So. View the profiles of people named Stephanie Smith. In Graham's first trial, the circuit court granted Graham's motion to suppress because, it ruled, the conversation was protected by marital privilege.4 However, in the second trial the circuit court denied Graham's motion to suppress after finding that Graham knew that her conversation with her husband was being recorded; therefore, the court concluded, the conversation was not a confidential marital communication. They showed up at 6:30 PM but the Grahams weren't there. . 1991), this Court noted that "our capital murder statute contemplates that certain aggravating circumstances will be established by certain capital verdicts." On July 26, 2013, Graham filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court attacking the circuit court's ruling denying her motion to dismiss. Costello said, he went into the room and spoke to Graham for about 10 minutes. "`Neither the Alabama Rules of Evidence nor Alabama caselaw sets a specific time limit for when a collateral act is considered too remote, other than a conviction for impeachment purposes.'" Specifically, she argues that the circuit court's ruling in her first trial on the merits of her motion to suppress the contents of a conversation with her husband should not have been reconsidered during her retrial because, she says, "the principles of collateral estoppel" barred the court from reconsidering the issue. 1994). "Criminal trials are adversary proceedings and not social affairs. 2948.) Graham next argues that the prosecutor's closing arguments in the guilt phase were erroneous. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. "Merely because an accused proffers evidence of a mitigating circumstance does not require the judge or the jury to find the existence of that fact." At trial, Graham made a different objection than the argument she makes on appeal. Benjamin v. State, 116 So.3d 115, 121-22 (Miss. 3480.) We are no longer accepting comments on this article. 2017); Scott v. State, 163 So.3d 389 (Ala. Crim. State v. O'Donnell, 142 Wn.App. She cites Rule 504(b), Ala. R. ashleygraham.komi.io. Graham cites Ex parte Woodall, 730 So.2d 652 (Ala. 1998), to support this argument. Moments later, the following occurred: "Unlike the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, which attaches automatically, the Fifth Amendment right to counsel will attach only when affirmatively invoked by the accused." Graham was indicted and convicted of hiring Kenneth Walton to murder her daughter, an offense defined as capital by 13A-5-40(a)(7), Ala. Code 1975, thereby punishable by death. (Emphasis added.) A prospective juror who responds that he or she will credit the testimony of a police officer more than the testimony of other witnesses may subsequently be rehabilitated; here, E.P. Several weeks before Shea was murdered, Cunningham overheard a conversation between Shea and Walton. (C. The Russell Circuit Court found that the murder was committed for pecuniary gain, an aggravating circumstance listed in 13A-5-49(6), Ala. Code 1975, and sentenced Graham to death.2 This appeal, which is automatic in a case involving the death penalty, followed. A lengthy discussion was held on this issue. She argued that the State had failed to prove that any money exchanged hands for the murder. 4227.) 1991). App. A suppression hearing was held. The prosecutor countered: (R. There was no proof at trial that a different crime was committed from the one charged in the indictment; therefore, there was no fatal variance in this case. They revealed that the plan had started in Las Vegas. Graham further argues that her conversation with her husband was the functional equivalent of a police interrogation and that, therefore, she should have been advised of her Miranda rights before the conversation took place. Bethea, 833 So. Sgt. "[R]eversible error cannot be predicated upon the overruling of an objection to a question which is not answered." Graham is due no relief on this claim. Cassidy is home for the summer from college and working at the local bar. Graham was indicted for violating 13A-5-40(a)(7), Ala. Code 1975. The State argues that when the jury returned with a question, the circuit court asked if Graham had an instruction on "valuable consideration." Based on our weighing of the Barker factors, we hold that Graham was not denied her constitutional right to a speedy trial. 2015), quoting State v. Williams, 364 Wis.2d 126, 148, 867 N.W.2d 736, 746 (2015). Haisten v. State, 50 Ala. App. Thus, Graham is due no relief on this claim. Indeed, once a mistrial has been declared, `in legal contemplation there has been no trial. Goodrich said that Graham initialed each page of and signed the waiver-of-rights form. 4392-93.) Looking for Stephanie Graham online? Prosecutors told how Graham hated her daughter because she was hooked on drugs, was working as a stripper and possibly a prostitute, and had dropped out of college. Find Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and TikTok profiles, images and more on IDCrawl. The court stated: 273 Ind. Indeed, she did not confess during her conversation with her husband. (R. However, the Alabama Supreme Court has recognized that the harmless-error rule applies to a circuit court's failure to remove a prospective juror for cause. By . (R. (C. 2000). Here, the record shows that Vasquez testified that she grew up with Shea and that they were best friends and spent a lot of time together before she went into foster care at 12 years of age. indicated on their juror questionnaires that they had close relatives that had convictions. App. The following occurred: At trial, the discussion surrounding this issue was confusing. attys. (R. The intent to kill must be real and it must be specific." I'm going to just go ahead and call my lawyer" was sufficient to invoke the defendant's right to counsel. Address: 1 South St Ste 2600 . Lived In Providence RI, Cranston RI, Warwick RI, Sutton MA. Graham did not object to this testimony; therefore, we are limited to determining whether there is plain error. 23.) 450 S.W.3d at 547. (Emphasis added. Graham then filed a similar petition in the Alabama Supreme Court. Clearly, the prosecutor's argument was not that the jury should ignore mitigating evidence but that the jury should not rely on the mitigating evidence that Graham presented. Graham said in one of her statements that she had given her gun to Walton so that he could kill his cousin Ieisha Hodge. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case. Her Grandparents were the late Anne "Big Mama" Moore and John "Dinty" Moore of local family. Our holding in Arthur has no application to the facts of this case because it did not involve a ruling on an extraordinary petition and a subsequent direct appeal involving the same issue in the same case. 3075.) When Sheriff Taylor first entered the interrogation room occupied by Graham and her husband, the following occurred: (R. 1142) (emphasis added). App. App. Healthy mother-of-two, 32, collapsed and died from brain bleed while she led fitness bounce class. Here, Graham did not specifically ask for counsel, although she did mention the word attorney during questioning. Indeed, she never asserted her right to a speedy trial. 1993). Verified. First, Graham argues that the prosecutor improperly bolstered the credibility of two state witnesses during their testimony. Walton." indicated during voir dire examination that she had been good friends with Sheriff Taylor for many years. 2006). Here, at the conclusion of the State's case, Graham moved for a judgment of acquittal. App. 2003). Here, no Atkins hearing was held because Graham never challenged her intellectual functioning. 3d ___, ___ (Ala. Crim. 160.) Sockwell, 675 So. Walton retrieved the gun while Shea was behind one of the truck doors using the bathroom. "`Generally, the proponent of a witness may not bolster the credibility of a witness by showing that he made similar statements on prior occasions. 2d at 379. Graham (pictured in 2007 at the time of her arrest) also believed Shae was having an affair with her husband as the two always sided together in arguments, which was driving their marriage apart. Evid., and the United States Supreme Court case of Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 332, 71 S.Ct. Buy newspaper front pages, posters and more. 616, 107 So.2d 899 (Ala. Cr. Sheriff Taylor said that an officer came to his office during the interview to tell him that Graham wanted to talk to him "to tell me the truth." Graham makes a more detailed argument in her brief to this Court. Graham is due no relief on this claim. "Former acts of hostility or cruelty by the accused upon the victim are very commonly the basis for the prosecution's proof that the accused had a motive to commit the charged homicide." 2673-74.) Also known as Stephanie C Chausse, Chausse Stephanie, Sc Chausse, S Chausse. The court further instructed: "To convict, the State must prove that Lisa L. Graham had particularized intent to kill Stephanie S. Graham. Hathaway v. State, 399 P.3d 625, 629 (Wyo. Walker told his girlfriend that they had told them they were to "make themselves at home" if they (the Grahams) weren't back yet from fishing. Walton said the mother met him at the Columbus Public Library on the evening of July 7, 2007, and loaned him her pistol for the job.