Thompson v. State

JOINER, Judge. 1

The appellant, Devin Darnell Thompson, 2 was convicted of murdering Fayette Police Officers Arnold Strickland and James Crump and police dispatcher Leslie “Ace” Mealer during the course of a robbery, violations of §§ 13A-5-40(a)(2), 13A-5-40(a)(5), and 13A-5-40(a)(10), Ala.Code 1975. The jury, by a vote of 10 to 2, recommended that Thompson be sentenced to death. The circuit court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Thompson to death. This appeal followed.

The State’s evidence tended to show the following. At approximately 6:00 a.m. on the morning of June 3, 2003, Tim Brown, a paramedic with the Fayette Medical Center, was dispatched to the Fayette Police Department. Brown testified that when he approached the station he saw Mealer’s body lying on the other side of the door to the police station, which was locked. After he forced his way inside, Brown said, he discovered that Mealer had been shot in the head. He proceeded through the building and found the bodies of Officer Crump and Officer Strickland. Both, he said, had been shot in the head and were lying in a pool of blood.

Testimony showed that at around 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 3, 2003, Officer Crump and Officer Strickland approached a vehicle parked in the lot of a local restaurant and found Thompson asleep in the vehicle. The dispatcher informed them that the vehicle had been stolen, and the officers took Thompson into custody.

*102 While the officers were booking Thompson they discovered that a dry-cleaning business, near where the car had been stolen, had been burglarized and clothing had been taken from that business. A shoe print had been discovered at the scene of that burglary. The officers removed Thompson’s handcuffs in order to take his fingerprints and removed one of his shoes to get a shoe print.

While Thompson was being fingerprinted, he took Strickland’s .40-caliber service pistol and shot Strickland in the head. Thompson then crossed the hall and shot Officer Crump in the head. As Thompson walked toward the exit of the police station he encountered Mealer. He shot Mealer multiple times and left the station.

Thompson attempted to reenter the station when he realized that one of his shoes was still inside, but the door had automatically locked when it closed, and he was unable to reenter. Thompson proceeded to the Fayette Fire Station, which was located in the same building as the Fayette Police Department, and told two firemen that “something bad had happened up front.” Thompson then stole a police cruiser and fled the scene.' He was arrested later that day near Columbus, Mississippi. The pistol Thompson had taken from Officer Strickland was found in the police cruiser.

At trial, Thompson did not dispute that he shot and killed the police officers and the dispatcher. His defense was that he was not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Thompson presented expert testimony to the effect that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) at the time of the murders and that he was in a dissociative state; therefore, he argued, he was not responsible for his actions. The State countered Thompson’s expert testimony by presenting expert testimony to the effect that Thompson was not in a dissociative state when he committed the murders.

The jury convicted Thompson of six counts of capital murder. A separate sentencing hearing was held, and the jury recommended, by a vote of 10 to 2, that Thompson be sentenced to death. A pre-sentence report was prepared, and a separate sentencing hearing was held before the circuit court. The circuit court found four aggravating circumstances: (1) That the murders were committed during the course of a robbery, § 13A-5-49(4), Ala.Code 1975; (2) that the murders were committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing an arrest or effecting an escape from custody, § 13A-5-49(5), Ala.Code 1975; (3) that the murders were committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of a governmental function or the enforcement of laws, § 13A-5-49(7), Ala.Code 1975; and (4) that the multiple murders were committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, § 13A-5-49(9), Ala.Code 1975. After weighing the aggravating circumstances and the mitigating circumstances, the circuit court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Thompson to death. This appeal, which is automatic in a case involving the death penalty, followed. See § 13A-5-53, Ala. Code 1975.

Standard of Review

According to Rule 45A, Ala. RApp. P., because Thompson has been sentenced to death, this Court must review the lower court proceedings -for plain error. Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P., provides:

“In all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed, the Court of Criminal Appeals shall notice any plain error or defect in the proceedings under review, whether or not brought to the attention of the trial court, and take appropriate appellate action by reason thereof, whenever such error has or *103 probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.”

While the failure to object will not bar our review of any issues Thompson raises on appeal, it will weigh against any claim of prejudice that Thompson makes on appeal. Brooks v. State, 973 So.2d 380, 387 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). “‘[T]he plain-error exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule is to be “used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result.” ’ ” Burton v. State, 651 So.2d 641, 645 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), quoting in turn, United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 , 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982)).

Guiltr-Phase Issues

I.

Thompson argues that the circuit court erred in failing to ensure that his trial was free from all outside influences. Specifically, he argues that the circuit court erred in declining to move his trial to a county that was free from allegedly prejudicial pretrial publicity.

The record shows that in April 2004, Thompson ‘moved for a change of venue, arguing that pretrial publicity had so “saturated the community and prejudiced prospective jurors against [Thompson] making a selection of a fair and impartial jury impossible.” (R. 100.) The State did not oppose the motion, and on August 17, 2004, the circuit court entered an order moving the trial to Lauderdale County. (R. 109; 116.) Sometime later, the court entered the following order, rescinding its August 2004 order and changing venue to Lamar County:

“On August 17, 2004, this Court entered an order on the defendant’s motion and the State’s consent transferring venue to the Circuit Court of Lauder-dale County. The transfer to Lauder-dale County was based on two criteria as set forth by [Thompson]: First, Lauderdale County is outside of the Birmingham, Alabama, media market; and, second, that Lauderdale County is similar to Fayette County in population demographics.

“The 24th Circuit consists of Fayette, Lamar, and Pickens Counties. The Court assumed, based on its location, that Lamar County is included in the Birmingham, Alabama, media market. The Court has now determined that Lamar County is outside of the Birmingham market. Furthermore, Lamar County is similar to Fayette County in population demographics. The defendant is African-American and, based on the 2000 United States Census, the percentage of Black or African-American persons in Fayette County is 11.9% and is 12% in Lamar County.

“Accordingly, to provide a pool of impartial prospective jurors and to promote judicial economy and efficiency, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows:

“1. That the venue of this action, for trial, is and it is hereby transferred to the Circuit Court of Lamar County, Ala-bama_”

(C.R. 207-08.) At the hearing on this motion, defense counsel objected to moving the case to Lamar County and argued that § 15-2-24, Ala.Code 1975, 3 prohibited .the court from changing venue a second time once venue had been changed. 4 The *104 Court stated: “Based upon a reading of the statute, that the trial must be removed to the nearest county, free from exception, the move to Lauderdale County would not have been proper, that is not the nearest county, and that the move to Lamar County would be the nearest county, without exception.” (R. 233-34.) Defense counsel then withdrew his motion for a change of venue and stated on the record that Thompson voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to a change of venue. (R. 235.) The court then issued an order stating that the motion for a change of venue had been rendered moot because Thompson had withdrawn his request and that the trial could proceed in Fayette County. (C.R. 209.)

Thompson did not present evidence indicating that pretrial publicity had saturated Lauderdale County or Lamar County, and he withdrew his motion for a change of venue when the court held that to comply with § 15-2-24, the case should be moved to a county nearer to Fayette County — Lamar County. Accordingly, if error did occur it was invited by Thompson’s actions.

“ ‘ “ ‘Invited error has been applied to death penalty cases. “An invited error is waived, unless it rises to the level of plain error.” Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 126 (Ala.1991).’ ” ’ See Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d 53, 88 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), quoting Scott v. State, 937 So.2d 1065, 1075 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), quoting in turn Adams v. State, 955 So.2d 1037, 1050-51 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003), rev’d on other grounds, 955 So.2d 1106 (Ala.2005).”

Doster v. State, 72 So.3d 50, 84 (Ala.Crim.App.2010). '

When reviewing a ruling on a motion for a change of venue, the Alabama Supreme Court has stated:

“An accused is entitled under § 15-2-20 to a change of venue if he can demonstrate that he cannot receive a fair trial in the county where he is to be tried. It is well established in Alabama, however, that the existence of pretrial publicity, even if extensive, does not in and of itself constitute a ground for changing venue and thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction of an offense. Beecher v. State, 288 Ala. 1 , 256 So.2d 154 (1971), rev’d on other grounds, 408 U.S. 234 , 92 S.Ct. 2282 , 33 L.Ed.2d 317 (1972); see, also, the cases annotated at § 15-2-20. In Nelson v. State, 440 So.2d 1130 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly noted that jurors do not have to be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved in a particular case in order to reach an unbiased verdict.”

Ex parte Fowler, 574 So.2d 745, 747 (Ala.1990).

“In connection with pretrial publicity, there are two situations which mandate a change of venue: 1) when the accused has demonstrated ‘actual prejudice’ against him on the part of the jurors; 2) when there is ‘presumed prejudice’ resulting from community saturation with such prejudicial pretrial publicity that no impartial jury can be selected. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 , 86 S.Ct. 1507 , 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); Rideau [v. Louisiana, 373 U.S. 723 (1963) ]; Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532 , 85 S.Ct. 1628 , 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965); Ex parte Grayson, 479 So.2d 76, 80 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 , 106 S.Ct. 189 , 88 L.Ed.2d 157 *105 (1985); Coleman v. Zant, 708 F.2d 541 (11th Cir.1983).

“The ‘actual prejudice’ standard is defined as follows:

“ ‘To find the existence of actual prejudice, two basic prerequisites must be satisfied. First, it must be shown that one or more jurors who decided the case entertained an opinion, before hearing the evidence adduced at trial, that the defendant was guilty. Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. [717,] 727, 81 S.Ct. [1639,] 1645, [ 6 L.Ed.2d 751, 758-59 (1961)]. Second, these jurors, it must be determined, could not have laid aside these preformed opinions and “rendered] a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. at 723 , 81 S.Ct. at 1643 [ 6 L.Ed.2d at 756 ].’

“Coleman v. Zant, 708 F.2d at 544 .

“... [The defendant] relies on the ‘presumed prejudice’ standard announced in Rideau, and applied by the United States Supreme Court in Estes and Sheppard . This standard was defined by the Eleventh Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d 1487 (11th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1164 , 106 S.Ct. 2289 , 90 L.Ed.2d 730 (1986). The court stated: ‘Prejudice is presumed from pretrial publicity when pretrial publicity is sufficiently prejudicial and inflammatory and the prejudicial pretrial publicity saturated the community where the trials were held.’ 778 F.2d at 1490 (emphasis added). See also Holladay v. State, 549 So.2d 122, 125 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 549 So.2d 135 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1012 , 110 S.Ct. 575 , 107 L.Ed.2d 569 (1989).

“In determining whether the ‘presumed prejudice’ standard exists the trial court should look at ‘the totality of the surrounding facts.’ Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025 , 104 S.Ct. 2885 , 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984); Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 , 81 S.Ct. 1639 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). The presumptive prejudice standard is ‘rarely applicable, and is reserved for only ‘extreme situations.’ Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d at 1537 . ‘In fact, our research has uncovered only a very few ... cases in which relief was granted on the basis of presumed prejudice.’ Coleman v. Kemp, 778 F.2d at 1490 .”

Hunt v. State, 642 So.2d 999, 1042-44 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

“The burden of showing actual prejudice or community saturation with prejudicial publicity lies with the appellant. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966). In addition, the appropriate method to establish the existence of adverse publicity or actual prejudice is through voir dire examination of potential jurors. Anderson v. State, 362 So.2d 1296 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); Ex parte Grayson, 479 So.2d 76 (Ala.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 (1985).”

Hart v. State, 612 So.2d 520, 527 (Ala.Crim.App.1992).

There was no evidence presented to support the motion for a change of venue; thus, we have no newspaper articles or transcripts of media coverage to review on appeal. The voir dire examination shows that numerous individuals in the jury pool had heard about the case, but those that had a fixed opinion were struck for cause. Other jurors indicated that they could set aside their opinions and render a fair decision based on the evidence presented in the case. The record fails to establish that the court committed reversible error in its actions in regard to Thompson’s motion for a change of venue.

*106 Thompson also argues, in this section of his brief, that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to exclude the public and representatives of the media from all pretrial proceedings. Thompson moved that the court “exclud[e] the public, print and electronic media from all pretrial hearings in this case.” (C.R. 156.) The circuit court denied the motion but ordered that no cameras would be allowed in the courtroom. (C.R. 187.)

“ ‘The closure of a trial ... implicates both the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and the public’s First Amendment right of access.’ Project, Twenty-Second Annual Review of Criminal Procedure: United States Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals 1991-1992, 81 Geo. L.J. 853 , 1388 (1993). See Ex parte Consolidated Pub. Co., 601 So.2d 423 , 426-28 (Ala.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1024 , 113 S.Ct. 665 , 121 L.Ed.2d 590 (1992), briefly summarizing the development of the law in this area. The United States Supreme Court has clearly established that the public, which includes the press, has a First Amendment right of access to the trial of a criminal case. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 603 , 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2618 , 73 L.Ed.2d 248 (1982); Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 580 , 100 S.Ct. 2814, 2829 , 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980). This right is related to, but independent of, an accused’s Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, ‘the common concern being the assurance of fairness.’ Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 7 , 106 S.Ct. 2735, 2739 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (hereinafter ‘Press-Enterprise II ’). The Supreme Court has held that the public’s right of access extends to jury voir dire, Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 508 , 104 S.Ct. 819, 823 , 78 L.Ed.2d 629 (1984) (hereinafter ‘Press-Enterprise /’), and to preliminary hearings, Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 10 , 106 S.Ct. at 2741 .

“In determining whether a First Amendment right of access applies to a particular proceeding, the United States Supreme Court has utilized a two-part analysis, taking into ‘consider[ation] whether the place and process have historically been open to the press and general public’ and “whether public access plays a significant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question.’ Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 8 , 106 S.Ct. at 2740 . Where these questions are answered in the affirmative, the ‘First Amendment right of public access attaches.’ Id. at 9 , 106 S.Ct. at 2740 .

“... While each case must be decided on its own facts, there is a presumption in favor of openness. See Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. at 573 , 100 S.Ct. at 2825 . Cf. The News-Journal Corp. v. Foxman, 939 F.2d 1499, 1512 (11th Cir.1991), and cases cited therein (discussing presumption in favor of openness in the context of prior restraint). The trial court may order closure only when ‘the party seeking to close the hearing advances an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced.’ Press-Enterprise II, 478 U.S. at 7 , 106 S.Ct. at 2739 .”

Ex parte Birmingham News Co., 624 So.2d 1117 , 1124-25 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

The only grounds Thompson argued in support of the motion to exclude the public and media representatives were (1) that he was charged with capital murder arising from a publicized case; (2) that there was a great deal of publicity concerning the case; (3) that the publicity was prejudicial; and (4) that “coverage of the proceedings herein ha[d] not only resulted in the dissemination of prejudicial information re *107 vealed at those hearings, but ha[d] also triggered the recounting by the media of the history of this case.” (R. 153.) Thompson does not cite any instance that occurred during trial that prejudiced him because of the circuit court’s denial of his motion to close the proceedings. Thompson failed to meet his burden of establishing that the closure of his trial was warranted. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying this motion.

Thompson also argues, in this section of his brief, that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to seal the records and transcripts until a jury was impaneled and sequestered or until after trial. (C.R. 152; 187.)

“Judicial records have historically been considered public records. There is a right of public access to court records, and a presumption in favor of such access. Moreover, the media has a right of access to judicial records, which right is no greater than that to the public.

“The right of access rises under the common law, and may arise under a statute or court rule. Although there is authority that the right is not of constitutional origin, it has also been held that there is a federal or state constitutional right of access to judicial records. Once documents have been filed in court, they become a judicial record, subject to the access accorded such records, and an agreement by the parties to restrict access is not binding on the court.”

76 C.J.S. Records § 82 (2011). See also M.C. Dransfield, Annot., Restricting Access to Judicial Records, 175 A.L.R. 1260 (1948).

The United States Supreme Court in Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 485 U.S. 589 , 98 S.Ct. 1306 , 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978), recognized that the right to inspect judicial records is not absolute. But “[o]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records.” In re Knoxville News-Sentinel Co., 723 F.2d 470, 476 (6th Cir.1983). “Trial courts have always been afforded the power to seal their records when interests of privacy outweigh the public’s right to know. But ... the decision as to when judicial records should be sealed is left to the sound discretion of the district court, subject to appellate review for abuse.” 723 F.2d at 474 .

Again, the only grounds argued in support of this motion were the same grounds Thompson argued to support his motion to close the pretrial proceedings. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Thompson’s motion to seal the records and transcripts until a jury had been empaneled in the case.

II.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in allowing his statements to law-enforcement personnel to be admitted into evidence because,' he says, they were illegally obtained. He makes several different arguments in support of this contention.

The record shows that Thompson moved that his statements be suppressed because, he said, they were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and they were involuntary. (C.R. 171.) An extensive hearing was held on the motion, at which time numerous Alabama and Mississippi law-enforcement officers testified. (R. 79-222.) The circuit court denied the motion to suppress Thompson’s confession and took the motion under advisement as it related to the statements that Thompson made to police officers while being transported from Belk, Alabama, to the Pickens County jail. When these statements were *108 offered into evidence, the circuit court denied the motion to suppress them. (R. 2056.)

In reviewing a circuit court’s ruling on a motion to suppress a confession we apply the standard articulated by the Alabama Supreme Court in McLeod v. State, 718 So.2d 727 (Ala.1998):

“For a confession, or an inculpatory statement, to be admissible, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was voluntary. Ex parte Singleton, 465 So.2d 443, 445 (Ala.1985). The initial determination is made by the trial court. Singleton, 465 So.2d at 445 . The trial court’s determination will not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the great weight of the evidence or is manifestly wrong. Marschke v. State, 450 So.2d 177 (Ala.Crim.App.1984)....

“The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides in pertinent part: ‘No person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself....’ Similarly, § 6 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 provides that ‘in all criminal prosecutions, the accused ... shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.’ These constitutional guarantees ensure that no involuntary confession, or other inculpatory statement, is admissible to convict the accused of a criminal offense. Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568 , 81 S.Ct. 1860 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Hubbard v. State, 283 Ala. 183 , 215 So.2d 261 (1968).

“It has long been held that a confession, or any inculpatory statement, is involuntary if it is either coerced through force or induced through an express or implied promise of leniency. Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532 , 18 S.Ct. 183 , 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897). In Culombe, 367 U.S. at 602 , 81 S.Ct. at 1879, the Supreme Court of the United States explained that for a confession to be voluntary, the defendant must have the capacity to exercise his own free will in choosing to confess. If his capacity has been impaired, that is, ‘if his will has been overborne’ by coercion or inducement, then the confession is involuntary and cannot be admitted into evidence. Id. (emphasis added).

“The Supreme Court has stated that when a court is determining whether a confession was given voluntarily it must consider the ‘totality of the circumstances.’ Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 480 , 89 S.Ct. 1138, 1139-40 , 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969); Greenwald v. Wisconsin, 390 U.S. 519, 521 , 88 S.Ct. 1152, 1154 , 20 L.Ed.2d 77 (1968); see Beecher v. Alabama, 389 U.S. 35, 38 , 88 S.Ct. 189, 191 , 19 L.Ed.2d 35 (1967). Alabama courts have also held that a court must consider the totality of the circumstances to determine if the defendant’s will was overborne by coercion or in-, ducement. See Ex parte Matthews, 601 So.2d 52, 54 (Ala.) (stating that a court must analyze a confession by looking at the totality of the circumstances), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1206 , 112 S.Ct. 2996 , 120 L.Ed.2d 872 (1992); Jackson v. State, 562 So.2d 1373, 1380 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (stating that, to admit a confession, a court must determine that the defendant’s will was not overborne by pressures and circumstances swirling around him); Eakes v. State, 387 So.2d 855, 859 (Ala.Crim.App.1978) (stating that the true test to be employed is “whether the defendant’s will was overborne at the time he confessed’) (emphasis added).”

718 So.2d at 729 (footnote omitted).

A.

Thompson first asserts that his statement to Johnny Tubbs, an agent with *109 the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, should have been suppressed because, he says, it was involuntary. Specifically, Thompson contends that his confession was involuntary because he was only 18 years old at the time he confessed, his mental impairment rendered him incapable of making a voluntary confession, he was alone with police for 8 hours in a small room, and the transcript of the confession was Agent Tubbs’s version of what Thompson told him and was not Thompson’s own words. The transcript of Thompson’s confession read as follows:

“On June 6, 2008, at approximately 5:30 p.m., I bought a white Toyota car from a crack head in Jasper, Alabama. I gave him $500 for it. I don’t know the crack head’s name but he is a black male, tall, dark complexion with a slim face....

“On June 7, 2003, at approximately 1:00 a.m., I parked in a gas station (convenience store) parking lot and went to sleep. This store is in Fayette, Alabama and is near a swimming pool. Sometime after 3:00 a.m. I was awakened] by a white police officer. He questioned me about the vehicle I was in. After checking on the vehicle the white officer told me the vehicle had been stolen from a shop in Jasper, Alabama. He put handcuffs on my wrists and placed me in the rear of his patrol car. At this time a black police officer arrived and started asking me questions. Then the white officer transported me to the Fayette Police Department. Upon arrival at the Fayette Police Department I was fingerprinted and photographed. Prints were taken of my shoes also by the black police officer. While he was printing my shoes the white police officer asked me to tell him where I got the vehicle. He stated that if I didn’t tell him I was going to spend at least two (2) to three (3) years in jail for receiving stolen property. He told me that I was being charged with a felony which was a serious crime.

“We were sitting in an office and after he made that statement I started freaking out. I started looking at his pistol and planning in my mind how I was going to escape. But things didn’t go as planned. I had planned to get the white police officer’s gun and make him handcuff himself to the black police officer. But after I got his pistol he started screaming and I freaked out and started shooting. After I got his pistol I was standing and he was still sitting in the chair. I don’t know how many times I shot him but I shot until he fell to the floor. As I was leaving that office, I met the black police officer in the hallway. I think he was coming to assist the white police officer because after I got his gun he screamed ‘He got my pistol.’ When I met the black police officer in the hallway he reached for his pistol. At this time I shot him. I don’t know how many times I shot him but he fell to the floor.

“Then I ran near another office where another officer (white) was watching what looked like a television screen. I heard him say ‘Oh sh~.’ I stood away from the office door and started shooting him. I shot until he fell out of his seat onto the floor. After I shot him I exited through a door and realized that I didn’t have but one (1) shoe on (left). I tried to go back inside to get my other shoe but I was locked out. At this time I shot at a thick piece of glass but it didn’t break. I shot at the glass until the pistol wouldn’t shoot anymore and it (pistol) locked open.

“I exited the police department and ran around the building and reentered through the fire department and went back to the police department area look *110 ing for my shoe but never found it. I reentered the building about two (2) or three (3) times. The last time I reentered a man that was sleeping in the fire department saw me and asked me what was going on. I told him that there were some officers down inside the police department. This was a white firefighter. He went inside with me and after he saw the bodies he ran to get some help. I got the first officer that I shot keys off the desk and exited the building and left the area in his patrol vehicle. I was en route to Jasper when I heard the police talking about me on the police radio. They stated where I was from Jasper, Alabama, and that I was armed and dangerous. At this time I decided not to go to Jasper, Alabama. At some point I took the police lights off the top of the police car that I had stolen.

“The reason I shot those officers was I didn’t want to go to jail. The reason I didn’t shoot the firefighter was he wasn’t a danger to me.” •

A supplemental statement was also admitted. This statement, signed by Agent Tubbs, included various observations that Thompson made to him: Thompson said that there was a smell of death in the police department and that every time he entered the station he smelled death, that he knew that he was going to die for what he had done, and that he hoped God would have mercy on his soul.

The young age of a defendant does not automatically render a confession inadmissible, but it is a relevant factor in assessing the voluntariness of the confession. See Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 726, 745 (Ala.Crim.App.1985). In Clarke v. State, 51 Ala.App. 222 , 283 So.2d 671 (Ala.Crim.App.1973), we .stated:

“We subscribe to the general proposition that the confession of a minor is not ipso facto inadmissible; however, infancy is certainly a relevant factor bearing upon the voluntariness, vel non, of a confession. 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 829; 87 A.L.R.2d 624 ; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108 , 18 So. 284 [ (1895) ]. The better rule appears to equate the capacity required for a valid confession with that prerequisite to criminal responsibility. We conclude from Burton, supra, that generally a person whose age and mental faculties make him amenable to criminal sanctions is sui juris in matters relating to confessions and in-culpatory admissions.”

51 Ala.App. at 224 , 283 So.2d at 673 . Thompson was 18 years old when he made his statement; thus, he was not entitled to have juvenile rights read to him. 5

“The fact that a defendant may suffer from a mental impairment or low intelligence will not, without other evidence, render a confession involuntary.” Baker v. State, 557 So.2d 851, 853 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). See also Charles C. Marvel, Mental Subnormality of Accused as Affecting Voluntariness or Admissibility of Confession, 8 A.L.R.4th 16 (1981).

“ ‘The Alabama courts have recognized that subnormal tendencies of the accused are but one factor to review in the totality of the circumstances surrounding the confession. See McCord v. State, 507 So.2d 1030 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Sasser v. State, 497 So.2d 1131 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Corbin v. State, 412 So.2d 299 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). For a more in-depth discussion of this point, see, 23 A.L.R. 4th 493 , 8 A.L.R.4th 16 .

*111 “ ‘Judge Bowen, speaking for this court in Corbin, supra, 412 So.2d at 301 , stated:

“ ‘ “Mental ‘subnormality’ does not in and of itself render a confession involuntary. Parker v. State, 351 So.2d 927 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. quashed, 351 So.2d 938 (Ala.1977); Arnold v. State, 348 So.2d 1092 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 348 So.2d 1097 (Ala.1977). The mere fact thát the defendant was simpleminded or ‘functionally illiterate’ will not vitiate the voluntariness of his confession.” ’ ”

Wheeler v. State, 659 So.2d 1032, 1034 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) (quoting Harkey v. State, 549 So.2d 631, 633 (Ala.Crim.App.1989)).

Questioning a suspect for three hours is not, in itself, coercive. See State v. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d 831, 846 (Mo.1998) (stating, in a case where the appellant had been in police custody for six hours, that “[t]he length of appellant’s interrogation was not coereive, in and of itself’). 6

Also, “[a] confession is not inadmissible because it is not transcribed verbatim as related by the defendant if the transcription is substantially as related and affirmed by the prisoner as correct.” Hobbs v. State, 401 So.2d 276, 282-83 (Ala.Crim.App.1981). See also Smith v. State, 54 Ala.App. 237 , 307 So.2d 47 (1975).

“ ‘ “The state is not required to prove all that the accused said when he confessed because the accused himself has the right to prove the remainder of his statement.” McElroy, § 200.17 at 446. “A confession is not rendered inadmissible because it is not verbatim as related by the accused and is admissible if its transcription is substantially as related and affirmed by the accused.” King v. State, 355 So.2d 1148, 1150 (1978). “The fact that the written statements signed by the defendant are not exactly, word for word, what he told the investigators is without legal significance.” Corbin v. State, 412 So.2d 299, 301 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). See also Hobbs v. State, 401 So.2d 276, 282-83 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Carpenter v. State, 400 So.2d 417, 423 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 400 So.2d 427 (1981).’ ”

Sneed v. State, 1 So.3d 104, 126 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (quoting Barrow v. State, 494 So.2d 834, 840 (Ala.Crim.App.1986)).

Agent Tubbs testified that on the morning of June 7, 2003, his commanding officer directed him to go to the Lowndes County jail in Mississippi to interview Thompson concerning the triple homicide in Fayette, Alabama. Tubbs testified that when he arrived at the jail he asked that Thompson be brought to an interview room. Tubbs advised Thompson of his Miranda rights. Another individual, Tommy Camp, a jailer with the Lowndes County jail, was also present during the interview. Agent Tubbs said that Thompson signed a waiver-of-rights form, that he was willing to make a statement, and that Thompson had not been coerced or threatened in order to obtain the statement. (R. 87.) Tubbs further testified that after Thompson confessed he put Thompson’s statement in writing and had Thompson read the transcription. After Thompson indicated that portions of the statement were incorrect, those portions were corrected, and Thompson then signed the transcribed confession. Tubbs also testified that he made no promises to Thompson, that Thompson did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time he made the statement, *112 and that Thompson was not threatened or coerced, in any way. He said that at first Thompson was calm but by the end of questioning he was crying. The questioning lasted from 10:30 a.m. until 1:05 p.m.

Officer Camp testified that he witnessed Agent Tubbs read Thompson his Miranda rights, that Tubbs did not coerce or in any way threaten Thompson, that Thompson was made no promises, and that he witnessed Thompson sign the waiver-of-rights form.

“In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, this Court may consider the evidence adduced both at the suppression hearing and at the trial.” Smith v. State, 797 So.2d 503, 526 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000). There was no medical testimony offered at trial indicating that Thompson was incapable of understanding his Miranda warnings.

Based on the totality of the circumstances, we hold that the circuit court did not err in allowing Thompson’s confession to be received into evidence.

B.

Thompson next asserts that the statements he made while being transported from Belk, Alabama, to Pickens County were inadmissible because, he says, he was not given his Miranda warnings a second time. Thompson specifically argues that “because both the location of the interrogation and the identity of the interrogators had changed” law-enforcement officers were required to repeat the Miranda rights.

Danny Jenkins, a former officer with the Fayette Police Department, testified that he went to Belk, Alabama, to transport Thompson to Pickens County on June 3, 2003. Jenkins said that Investigator Keith Cox was also in the vehicle with them. For a good portion of the ride, he said, everyone was silent. To relieve the silence he asked Thompson if he was related to “Mookie Moore.” Jenkins testified that Thompson then responded: “Don’t slander my family because of something I did.” (R. 209.) Jenkins then testified, reading from a statement that had been prepared by Officer Cox, about the conversation that Thompson had with the officers while in the patrol car:

“Moore said for us to tell him the truth. This writer responded, ‘yeah, it’s the top of the pile.’ Moore than asked about murder, first degree. And this writer stated there was not such a charge. Moore asked if he would get the death penalty. This writer responded, ‘that’s a question I can’t answer. That’s why we have juries and trials, to decide those things.’

“Moore also asked if we had seen the news. Both this writer and Jenkins stated we had not. Moore stated, ‘I figured I’d be on the news.’ ”

(R. 210.) Jenkins said that they did not question Thompson about the facts of the case but that Thompson merely volunteered the above statements when asked about a relative.

Thompson was given his Miranda warning at approximately 10:30 a.m. on the morning of June 3, 2003, and was transported at 3:25 p.m. that afternoon. Approximately 5 hours had elapsed since the time Thompson was given his Miranda warnings at the Lowndes County, Mississippi, jail by a different law-enforcement officer and the time he made the statement to Jenkins in the patrol car en route to Belk, Alabama. The Alabama Supreme Court has recently addressed when Miranda warnings become stale:

“Other courts have, in addressing whether Miranda rights have become stale, focused on the circumstances surrounding the interrogation. In Jarrell *113 v. Balkcom, 735 F.2d 1242 (11th Cir.1984), Jarrell confessed to murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and aggravated assault approximately three hours after receiving his Miranda warnings from a police investigator at city hall. Jarrell was never readvised of his rights, even after being arrested. From the time Jarrell received his Miranda warnings until he confessed, Jarrell was escorted from city hall to police headquarters, where he was interviewed by a police sergeant, driven from headquarters to the district 'attorney’s office, where a polygraph examination was administered, then driven back to police headquarters, where he was arrested by the same police sergeant, and interrogated for an additional 30 to 45 minutes by the sergeant before confessing. Jarrell argued that the Miranda warnings should have been refreshed and that, therefore, the confession was inadmissible.

“ ‘Under the circumstances of this case, we do not view a confession given less than four hours after the issuance of Miranda warnings inadmissible because of the failure to reissue the warnings. Although Jarrell was not technically in custody until he was arrested, he was a suspect from the moment he received his warnings. The record reflects that the warnings given were complete and that Jarrell understood them. Cf. Edwards v. Indiana, 412 N.E.2d 223, 225-26 (Ind.1980) (where defendant, not yet a suspect, was given orally his Miranda warnings and record contained no evidence of content of oral advisement, confession given 5 hours later when defendant had become a suspect not admissible). Furthermore, the fact that Jarrell confessed to a state officer (Blannott) other than the one who administered the Miranda warnings (Bishop), does not render the warnings insufficient, especially since, before interrogating Jarrell, Blannott asked Bishop in Jarrell’s presence ' whether petitioner had received his Miranda warnings. (T.T. 545). See State v. Gallagher, 36 Ohio App.2d [2]9, 301 N.E.2d 888 (1973) (change from one state interrogator to another insufficient break to require fresh warnings). Cf. United States v. Hopkins, 433 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 1013 , 91 S.Ct. 1252 , 28 L.Ed.2d 550 (1971) (change from state police officer questioning defendant about state crime to federal officer questioning about federal crime; no new warnings required); Mitchell v. State, 3 Tenn.Cr.App. 153, 458 S.W.2d 630 (1970) (questioning regarding different crime occurred on following day; no new warnings required). We conclude that no violation of petitioner’s rights occurred by the failure to reissue the Miranda warnings at the time of arrest because the totality of the facts do not reflect that Jarrell was unaware of his rights, that he was pressured, or that he was mentally deficient or naive about the process that was under way. Additionally, Jarrell had had previous experience with law enforcement officers where his rights were explained.’

“735 F.2d at 1254.”

Ex parte Landrum, 57 So.3d 77, 84-85 (Ala.2010). The Landrum Court held that even though Miranda warnings had been given to Landrum 60 hours before he made a statement and his location had changed from the police department to a city jail, based on the totality of the circumstances, the Miranda warnings were not stale.

The Miranda warnings in this case were not stale when Thompson made the statements to Jenkins approximately five hours *114 after he was read his Miranda rights. See Landrum.

Moreover,

“the Miranda safeguards come into play whenever a person in custody is subjected to either express questioning or its functional equivalent. That is to say, the term ‘interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words .or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive . police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. But, since the police surely cannot be held accountable for the unforeseeable results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”

Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301-02 , 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980) (emphasis added).

“Although it is undisputed that such statements were made while the defendant was in custody and without the benefit of Miranda warnings, they were spontaneous and, therefore, admissible (see, People v. Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648, 650 , 438 N.Y.S.2d 990 [ (1981) ]; People v. Suarez, 140 A.D.2d 558 , 528 N.Y.S.2d 424 [(1988)]). The challenged statements were preceded only by questions requesting pedigree information which were not likely to elicit incriminatory responses (see, People v. Padron, 118 A.D.2d 599 , 499 N.Y.S.2d 202 [(1986)]).”

People v. Smith, 151 A.D.2d 792, 793 , 543 N.Y.S.2d 121,122 (1989).

The question Jenkins asked Thompson — whether he was related to Mookie Moore — was not a question designed to elicit an incriminating response. Thus, Miranda warnings were not necessary.

Furthermore, in Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 1246 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991), the United States Supreme Court held that the erroneous admission of a defendant’s confession may be harmless.

“When reviewing the erroneous admission of an involuntary confession, the appellate court, as it does with the admission of other forms of improperly admitted evidence, simply reviews the remainder of the evidence against the defendant to determine whether the admission of the confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”

499 U.S. at 310 . “In order for the harmless error doctrine to be applied in this situation, the evidence against the accused must be overwhelming.” McCray v. State, 629 So.2d 729, 732 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). Even if it was error to admit the statements made to Jenkins, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in view of Thompson’s earlier statement to Tubbs. See Arizona v. Fulminante 7

*115 III.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred during the jury-selection process. Specifically, he asserts that the court failed to remove jurors who were biased, failed to remove jurors who would automatically vote for the death penalty, erroneously allowed the jurors to be death-qualified, and failed to sequester the jury. We will address each of these claims individually.

A.

Thompson argues that the circuit court should have removed prospective jurors L.E., D.S., M.S., and S.W. 8 for cause because, Thompson says, they stated during voir dire that they believed that Thompson was guilty or their answers during voir dire showed an absolute bias against Thompson.

Initially, we note that juror S.W. was removed by the use of a peremptory strike and jurors L.E. and D.S. were alternates and were removed prior to jury deliberations. Accordingly, any error in failing to remove these jurors for cause was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. “[T]he Alabama Supreme Court has held that the failure to remove a juror for cause is harmless when that juror is removed by the use of a peremptory strike. Bethea v. Springhill Mem’l Hosp., 833 So.2d 1 (Ala.2002).” Pace v. State, 904 So.2d 331, 341 (Ala.Crim.App.2003). Cf. Ex parte Colby, 41 So.3d 1 (Ala.2009) (may not be harmless when multiple challenges for cause are involved).

Moreover,

“To justify a challenge for cause, there must be a proper statutory ground or ‘“some matter which imports absolute bias or favor, and leaves nothing to the discretion of the trial court.” ’ Clark v. State, 621 So.2d 309, 321 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) (quoting Nettles v. State, 435 So.2d 146, 149 (Ala.Cr.App.1983)). This court has held that ‘once a juror indicates initially that he or she is biased or prejudiced or has deepseated impressions’ about a case, the juror should be removed for cause. Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229, 234 (Ala.1989). The test to be applied in determining whether a juror should be removed for cause is whether the juror can eliminate the influence of his previous feelings and render a verdict according to the evidence and the law. Ex parte Taylor, 666 So.2d 73, 82 (Ala.1995). A juror ‘need not be excused merely because [the juror] knows something of the case to be tried or because [the juror] has formed some opinions regarding it.’ Kinder v. State, 515 So,2d 55, 61 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).”

Ex parte Davis, 718 So.2d 1166, 1171-72 (Ala.1998).

“The test for determining whether a strike rises to the level of a challenge for cause is “whether a juror can set aside their opinions and try the case fairly and impartially, according to the law and the evidence.’ Marshall v. State, 598 So.2d 14, 16 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). ‘Broad discretion is vested with the trial court in determining whether or not to sustain challenges for cause.’ Ex parte Nettles, 435 So.2d 151,153 (Ala.1983). ‘The decision of the trial court “on such questions *116 is entitled to great weight and will not be interfered with unless clearly erroneous, equivalent to an abuse of discretion.” ’ Nettles, 435 So.2d at 158.”

Dunning v. State, 659 So.2d 995, 997 (Ala.Crim.App.1994).

“The qualification of a juror is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Clark v. State, 443 So.2d 1287,1288 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). The trial judge is in the best position to hear a prospective juror and to observe his or her demeanor.” Ex parte Dinkins, 567 So.2d 1313, 1314 (Ala.1990). “ ‘[JJurors 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).” Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907, 926 (Ala.Crim.App.2008).

“It is well to remember that the lay persons on the panel may never have been subjected to the type of leading questions and cross-examination techniques that frequently are employed ... [during voir dire].... Also, unlike witnesses, prospective jurors have had no briefing by lawyers prior to taking the stand. Jurors thus cannot be expected invariably to express themselves carefully or even consistently. Every trial judge understands this, and under our system it is that judge who is best situated to determine competency to serve impartially. The trial judge may properly choose to believe those statements that were the most fully articulated or that appeared to be have been least, influenced by leading.”

Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1039 , 104 S.Ct. 2885 , 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984).

Thompson asserts that L.E. should have been removed for cause because, he says, she indicated in her juror questionnaire that she believed Thompson was guilty. The following occurred during the voir dire of L.E.:

“[Defense counsel]: In your questionnaire — and I could have this wrong. So, if I am wrong, just don’t think I’m completely crazy. But you’ve made the statement — you said you’re familiar with the news about the case. And I think you said, T believe Devin Thompson is guilty of murdering three police officers and should be judged and punished accordingly.’ You put that in your questionnaire?

“[L.E.]: Yes, I did.

“[Defense counsel]: Now, you’ve just— the Judge has just asked you if you have a fixed opinion that could not be — that would prevent you from listening to the evidence. Would that—

“[L.E.]: No.

“[Defense counsel]: It would not?

“[L.E.]: No.

“[Defense counsel]: That opinion that you expressed in there is not a fixed opinion?

“[L.E.]: No.

“[Defense counsel]: And it would not prevent you from listening to the evidence in this case and making a verdict, or rendering a verdict, accordingly; is that right?

“[L.E.]: That’s correct.”

(R. 1267-68.) “‘[J]urors who give responses that would support a challenge for cause may be rehabilitated by subsequent questioning by the prosecutor or the Court.’ ” Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907, 926 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (quoting Johnson v. State, 820 So.2d 842, 855 (Ala.Crim.App.2000)). The circuit court asked L.E. if she had a fixed opinion about Thompson’s guilt or innocence, and L.E. indicated that she did not. L.E. also indicated when questioned by defense counsel that any view that she had about the case was not so *117 fixed that it would prevent her from rendering a fair verdict in the case. Thompson did not move the court to remove this juror for cause. The circuit court did not err in failing sua sponte to remove L.E. for cause.

Thompson argues that D.S. should have been struck for cause because she indicated that she knew one of the victims and his wife and that fact “would affect [her].” (R. 644.) The following then occurred during the voir dire examination of juror D.S.:

“The Court: All right. Now, if you are a juror on this case, it will be your duty, and you would take an oath, to render a verdict based solely on the evidence and law presented in court. In other words, just what happens in the courtroom.

“Now, my question for you is: This relationship that you had with those people, would you be able to set aside and make a decision based solely on the evidence and the law presented in court? Could you do that?

“[D.S.]: Yes.”

(R. 820.)

“‘[T]he mere fact that a prospective juror is personally acquainted with the victim [or his family] does not automatically disqualify a person from sitting on a criminal jury.’ Brownlee v. State, 545 So.2d 151, 164 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), affirmed, 545 So.2d 166 (Ala.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 874 , 110 S.Ct. 208 , 107 L.Ed.2d 161 (1989).... Instead, the test is ‘whether the [prospective] juror’s acquaintance with [the victim] or relative is such that it would result in probable prejudice.’ Vaughn v. Griffith, 565 So.2d 75, 77 (Ala.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1097 , 111 S.Ct. 987 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1991).”

Morrison v. State, 601 So.2d 165, 168 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). The court asked D.S. if her friendship with one of the victims would prevent her from rendering a fan-decision in the case, and she responded that it would not. Thompson did not move that D.S. be struck for cause. The circuit court did not err in failing sua sponte to remove D.S. for cause.

Thompson asserts that juror M.S. should have been struck for cause because, he said, she responded that she thought the insanity defense was used too frequently. During questioning she indicated that she could follow the court’s instructions. (R. 707.) M.S. responded:

“[M.S.]: Yes, sir, I do. I feel like there’s a reason we’re here. It’s—I’m not personally involved with the families but I know them. I’m not personally involved with Devin. I don’t know him. But I know he’s due a fair trial, and I can do that, I believe.”

(R. 1714-15.) M.S. indicated that any feelings she had would not prevent her from giving Thompson a fair trial. Also, Thompson did not move that M.S. be struck for cause. The court did not err in failing sua sponte to remove M.S. for cause.

Juror S.W. should have been removed, Thompson says, because she never indicated that she could set aside her preconceived views and render a decision based on the evidence. The following occurred during the voir dire examination of S.W.:

“Prospective Juror [S.W.]: I think there’s a lot of predetermined views already, you know, among people. And we would just have to weigh the evidence.

“[Prosecutor]: You wouldn’t let those predetermined views, or the fact that somebody might have them, affect you in this case? That wouldn’t sway you?

“[S.W.]: No, I don’t think so.

*118 “[Prosecutor]: You would make up your own mind?

“[S.W.]: Yes, sir.”

(R. 1751.) Juror S.W. indicated that she could be impartial and base her decision on the facts and the evidence presented in the case. There was no error in the circuit court’s failure sua sponte to remove S.W. for cause.

B.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in failing to remove for cause those jurors who stated during voir dire that they would automatically vote for the death penalty. Specifically, he asserts that prospective jurors W.C. and D.H. indicated that they would automatically vote for death and that the circuit court should have removed them from the venire.

“ £[W]hether a prospective juror in a capital murder case is properly excluded based on the juror’s views concerning the death penalty involves a question of fact. Therefore, a proper review of this determination requires that we give great deference to the trial judge’s discretion, because the judge was present and capable of observing the potential jurors and their responses.’ Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1025 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), aff'd, 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998), citing Wainwright v. Witt, [ 469 U.S. 412 (1985) ].

“In Clemons v. State, 720 So.2d 961 (Ala.Cr.App.1996), aff'd, 720 So.2d 985 (Ala.1998), this court stated:

“ ‘ “Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), set the early standard for a court’s exclusion for cause of venire-persons who oppose the death penalty. The Court in dicta in Witherspoon limited exclusion for cause to those venirepersons who made it ‘unmistakably clear (1) that they would automatically vote against imposition of capital punishment ... or (2) that their attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt.’ Id. 522-23 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1777 n. 21. Subsequently, in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), the Court clarified or modified its decision in Witherspoon by holding that the state may exclude venirepersons in capital cases whose views would ‘ “prevent or substantially impair the performance of [their] duties as a juror in accordance with his instruction and [their] oath.” ’ Id., 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852 (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526 , 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)). The new Witt standard dispensed with the Witherspoon reference to ‘automatic’ decision-making, and eliminated the requirement that a venireperson’s bias be proved with ‘unmistakable clarity.’ 469 U.S. at 424 , 105 S.Ct. at 852.” ’ ”

Burgess v. State, 811 So.2d 557, 570 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), rev’d on other grounds, 811 So.2d 617 (Ala.2000).

The record shows that juror D.H. indicated that he believed that the death penalty should be automatic for premeditated killings. When questioned about his views he stated that he could not think of any reason why he “could not give both the State and Defendant a fair and impartial trial.” (R. 1374.)

Juror W.C. stated that if someone was convicted of intentional murder they should get the death penalty. The following occurred during further questioning of W.C.:

*119 “[Defense counsel]: If the Judge instructed you that you would have to fairly, and with an open mind, weigh these reasons to give the death penalty and reasons to not give the death penalty, would you be able to set aside your feelings about the death penalty and do that in accordance with the Judge’s instructions?

“[W.C.]: With his instructions, I should be.

“[Defense counsel]: And all this — with your feelings about the death penalty, you ain’t going to put us to a higher standard? You’re going to give us a fair hearing?

“[W.C.]: That’s just — that was just my opinion.

“[Defense counsel]: Yes, sir, I understand.

“[W.C.]: And, you know, when the Judge tells what a fellow’s got to do, I mean, you know, he’s got to do it.”

(R. 1107.)

Both D.H. and W.C. indicated that they could set aside their views on the death penalty and follow the law as instructed by the court. “[The jurors] indicated that [they] could be objective and consequently [were] not subject to a challenge for cause.” Harrell v. State, 470 So.2d 1303, 1306 (Ala.Crim.App.1984).

Moreover, neither D.H. nor W.C. served on Thompson’s jury; therefore, any error in failing to remove them for cause was harmless. See Pace, supra.

C.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in excusing F.W. for undue hardship. The following occurred during the voir dire examination of F.W.:

“The Court: Do you believe that taking these medications [Lipitor, hydrochlo-rothiazide, lisinopril, Actos, diclofenac sodium, and Prandin], the illnesses that you have, and the problem that you have of dozing off, would prevent you from being a good juror in this case?

“[F.W.]: If I don’t hear what’s going on, I might not be.

“The Court: And you’re saying that this falling asleep is something you can’t help?

“[F.W.]: No.

“The Court: And yesterday, during the proceedings, you did it — you’re telling me that you fell off asleep three times while I was talking?

“[F.W.]: Yeah.

“The Court: And you just woke up— how late — how much later?

“[F.W.]: I don’t have no — I don’t know time, how long I be asleep.

“The Court: But you know that you went to sleep while I was talking, or one of the lawyers was talking, and then you just woke up?

“[F.W.]: That’s it.

“The Court: Do you feel like you missed anything while you were nodded off?

“[F.W.]: I can’t remember.

. “The Court: All right. [F.W.] you will be excused.”

(R. 758-59.) Thompson objected to the circuit court’s removal of F.W.

Section 12-16-63, Ala.Code 1975, addresses a court’s authority to excuse prospective jurors from jury service. At the time of Thompson’s trial, this section stated, in pertinent part:

“(a) The court, upon request of a prospective juror or on its own initiative, shall determine On the basis of information provided on the jury qualification form or interview with the prospective juror or other competent evidence whether the prospective juror should be excused from jury service. The jury *120 commission shall enter this determination on the juror qualification form and the master list.

“(b) A person who is not disqualified for jury service may be excused from jury service by the court only upon a showing of undue hardship, extremq inconvenience or public necessity, for a period the court deems necessary, at the conclusion of which the person may be directed to reappear for jury service in accordance with the court’s directions.” 9

In addressing the scope of § 12-16-68, Ala.Code 1975, we have stated:

“The trial court is vested with broad discretion in excusing potential jurors from service under this section. See Giles v. State, 682 So.2d 568, 574 (Ala.Cr.App.1992). Trial courts have properly excused jurors pursuant to this section for a myriad of reasons. See Madison v. State, 718 So.2d 90, 100 (Ala.Cr.App.1997) (potential juror excused because mother had recently undergone surgery and suffered with Alzheimer’s disease; another potential juror excused because juror’s mother was terminally ill); Allen v. State, 683 So.2d 38, 42 (Ala.Cr.App.1996) (eight potential jurors were excused, most of whom were students at the University of Alabama with pending final exams); Knotts v. .State, 686 So.2d 431, 480 (Ala.Cr.App.1995) (veniremember excused by a ‘court strike’ because there was an odd number of veniremembers remaining); Giles v. State, supra, at 574 (black potential juror properly excused because she was sole caretaker of an infant and a five-year-old child). 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). Moreover, a trial court is not required to ask follow-up questions or to have potential jurors elaborate on any possible preventions of their hardships. See Madison v. State, supra, at 100.”

McWhorter v. State, 781 So.2d 257, 273 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).

The circuit court did not abuse its broad discretion in removing juror F.W. for health reasons.

D.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in removing jurors C.K, M.S., and K.T. because, he asserts, they indicated that they could be fair and impartial. These jurors were removed based on their views on the death penalty. Thompson did not object to the court’s granting of the State’s motions to remove jurors C.K. and M.S. for cause and specifically stated on the record that he had no objection to the removal of juror K.T. Accordingly, we review this claim for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.

“Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , 88 S.Ct. 1770 , 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968), allows the prosecution in a capital case to strike for cause those potential jurors who would automatically vote against imposing capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at trial or those potential jurors whose attitude toward the death penalty would prevent them from making an impartial decision as to the defendant’s guilt. In Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), the Supreme Court held that in a capital case the prosecutor may exclude *121 venirepersons whose views would ‘prevent or substantially impair’ their performance of their duty as ... jurors.

“In Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 , 112 S.Ct. 2222 , 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992), the Supreme Court held that it violated the requirements of due process to allow the prosecution to strike for cause persons who are opposed to the death penalty while not allowing the defense to exclude for cause those venirepersons who are predisposed to impose capital punishment regardless of the evidence presented. Thus, a capital defendant may challenge for cause any venireper-son who would automatically vote to impose death if the defendant was convicted of a capital crime.”

Ex parte Smith, 698 So.2d 219, 221 (Ala.1997).

Juror C.K. stated during voir dire that she did not think she could vote for the death penalty and that she could not follow the law. She was struck for cause. (R. 1524.) Juror M.S. said that she was opposed to the death penalty and could not consider it as a punishment. She was likewise struck for cause. (R. 1724.) Juror K.T. stated that he had problems with voting for the death penalty and could not set aside those feelings and follow the law. He was also struck for cause. (R. 1772.) The record of the voir dire shows that these jurors indicated that they could not be impartial and follow the law because of their opposition to the death penalty. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in removing these jurors for cause based on their opposition to the death penalty. See Smith, supra.

E.

Thompson next asserts that death-qualifying the jurors produced a “conviction-prone” jury and violated his right to a fair and impartial trial because, he says, it disproportionately excluded minorities and women from his jury. Thompson did not object to these questions during voir dire examination. In fact, Thompson filed a pretrial motion requesting that the court exclude from the venire all jurors who would automatically vote for the death penalty. (C.R. 142.) The circuit court granted this motion. (C.R. 187.) Thus, we review this claim for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.

“In Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986), the United States Supreme Court held that veniremembers in a capital-murder trial may be ‘death-qualified’ to determine their views on capital punishment. The appellate courts in Alabama have repeatedly applied the Lockhart holding. As this Court stated in Sockwell v. State, 675 So.2d 4 (Ala.Crim.App.1998):

“ ‘In Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986), the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit states from “death qualification” of juries in capital cases and that so qualifying a jury does not deprive a defendant of an impartial jury. 476 U.S. at 173 , 106 S.Ct. at 1764. Alabama Courts have consistently held likewise. See Williams v. State, 556 So.2d 737 (Ala.Crim.App.1986), rev’d in part, 556 So.2d 744 (Ala.1987); Edwards v. State, 515 So.2d 86, 88 (Ala.Crim.App.1987); Martin v. State, 494 So.2d 749 (Ala.Crim.App.1985).’

“675 So.2d at 18.”

Lee v. State, 44 So.3d 1145, 1161-62 (Ala.Crim.App.2009).

“A jury composed exclusively of jurors who have been death-qualified in accordance with the test established in Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985), is considered to be impartial even though it may be *122 more conviction prone than a non-death-qualified jury. Williams v. State, 710 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Cr.App.1996). See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986). Neither the federal nor the state constittion prohibits the state from ... death-qualifying jurors in capital cases. Id,.; Williams; Haney v. State, 603 So.2d 368, 391-92 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), aff'd, 603 So.2d 412 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 925 , 113 S.Ct. 1297 , 122 L.Ed.2d 687 (1993).”

Davis v. State, 718 So.2d 1148, 1157 (Ala.Crim.App.1995).

The circuit court complied with long-established law by allowing the jurors to be death-qualified to determine their views on capital punishment. See Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162 , 106 S.Ct. 1758 , 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986). There was no error in regard to this claim.

F.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in failing to sequester the jury.

Thompson did not move to sequester the jury; therefore, we review this claim for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.

“The trial court, in allowing the jury to separate, acted pursuant to § 12-16-9, Ala.Code 1975, amended effective June 15, 1995. That section provides:

“‘In the prosecution of any felony case the trial court in its discretion may permit the jury hearing the case to separate during the pendency of the trial. The court may at any time on its own initiative or on motion of any party, require that the jury be sequestered under the charge of a proper officer whenever they leave the jury box or the court may allow them to separate.’

“Thus, the trial court acted within its discretion in allowing the jury to separate.

“Moreover, there is no indication in the record that the appellant suffered any prejudice by the failure to sequester the jury. Rule 19.3(a), Ala. R.Crim. P., amended effective December 1, 1997, to ensure conformity with § 12-16-9, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in pertinent part:

“ ‘(1) In the prosecution of any felony ease, the trial court, in its discretion, may permit the jury hearing the case to separate during the pendency of the trial. Such a separation of the jury shall create a prima facie presumption that the accused was not prejudiced by reason of the separation.

“‘(2) The court may, at any time, on its own initiative or on motion of any party, require that the jury be sequestered under the charge of a proper officer whenever the jurors leave the jury box, or the court may allow the jury to separate. A motion to separate or sequester shall not be made within the hearing of the [jury, and the jury shall not be informed which] party, if any, requested the separation or sequestration.’

“See also Broadnax v. State, 825 So.2d 134 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Ex parte Stewart, 730 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 846 , 120 S.Ct. 119 , 145 L.Ed.2d 101 (1999) (the Alabama Supreme Court stated this court ‘correctly held that § 12-16-9, [Ala.Code 1975] overrode the conflicting portions of Rule 19.3, [Ala. R. Cr. P.].’ Id. at 1250.)

“The record indicates that the appellant presented no evidence to rebut the prima facie presumption that he was not prejudiced by the court’s failure to require sequestration.”

*123 Centobie v. State, 861 So.2d 1111, 1183 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).

There is no indication in the record that Thompson was prejudiced as a result of the failure to sequester the jury. The circuit court did not err in failing sua sponte to sequester the jury.

IV.

Thompson argues that the State violated Batson 10 by, he says, using its peremptory strikes to remove black prospective jurors from the venire based solely on their race.

The United States Supreme Court in Batson held that it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to strike a black individual from a black defendant’s jury based solely on his or her race. This holding was extended to white defendants in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 , 111 S.Ct. 1364 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991); to defense counsel in criminal cases in Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42 , 112 S.Ct. 2348 , 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992); and to gender in J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 , 114 S.Ct. 1419 , 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). The Alabama Supreme Court extended this holding to white prospective jurors in White Consolidated Industries, Inc. v. American Liberty Insurance Co., 617 So.2d 657 (Ala.1993).

After Thompson’s jury was struck, defense counsel asserted that the State had violated Batson by using four of its peremptory strikes to remove all the black jurors from the venire. The circuit court found that the defense had established a prima facie case of discrimination and directed the State to set out its reasons for removing the black jurors. After the State provided its reasons, the circuit court found that the reasons for removing the black prospective jurors were race-neutral. (R. 1841.)

“ ‘After a prima facie case is established, there is a presumption that the peremptory challenges were used to discriminate against black jurors. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723. The State then has the burden of articulating a clear, specific, and legitimate reason for the challenge which relates to the particular case to be tried, and which is nondiscriminatory. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723. However, this showing need not rise to the level of a challenge for cause. Ex parte Jackson, [ 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986) ].’

“Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609, 623 (Ala.1987).

“‘Within the context of Batson, a “race-neutral” explanation “means an explanation based on something other than the race of the juror. At this step of the inquiry, the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor’s explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor’s explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral.” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 360 , 111 S.Ct. 1859, 1866 , 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991). “In evaluating the race-neutrality of an attorney’s explanation, a court must determine whether, assuming the proffered reasons for the peremptory challenges are true, the challenges violate the Equal Protection Clause as a matter of law.” Id. “[Evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lies ‘peculiarly within the trial judges’s province.’” Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 365 , 111 S.Ct. at 1869 .’

“Allen v. State, 659 So.2d 135, 147 (Ala.Crim.App.1994).”

*124 Martin v. State, 62 So.3d 1050, 1058-59 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).

“ “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). ‘A trial court is in a far better position than a reviewing court to rule on issues of credibility.’ Woods v. State, 789 So.2d 896, 915 (Ala.Crim.App.1999). ‘Great confidence is placed in our trial judges in the selection of juries. Because they deal on a daily basis with the attorneys in their respective counties, they are better able to determine whether discriminatory patterns exist in the selection of juries.’ Parker v. State, 571 So.2d 381, 384 (Ala.Crim.App.1990).

“ ‘Deference to trial court findings on the issue of discriminatory intent makes particular sense in this context because, as we noted in Batson, the finding will “largely turn on evaluation of credibility.” 476 U.S., at 98, n. 21 . In the typical challenge inquiry, the decisive question will be whether counsel’s race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed. There will seldom be much evidence bearing on that issue, and the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the attorney who exercises the challenge.’

“Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991).”

Doster v. State, 72 So.3d 50, 73-74 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).

“[Wjhen more than one reason was given for striking some veniremembers, we need only find one race neutral reason among those asserted to find that the strike was race-neutral; we need not address any accompanying reasons that might be suspect. See Powell v. State, 608 So.2d 411 (Ala.Cr.App.1992); Davis v. State, 555 So.2d 309 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989).”

Zumbado v. State, 615 So.2d 1223, 1231 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). “ ‘So long as there is a non-racial reason for the challenge, the principles of Batson are not violated.’ ” Jackson v. State, 686 So.2d 429, 430 (Ala.Crim.App.1996) (quoting Zanders v. Alfa Mut. Ins. Co., 628 So.2d 360, 361 (Ala.1993)).

“Once the prosecutor has articulated a race-neutral reason for the strike, the moving party can then offer evidence showing that those reasons are merely a sham or pretext.” Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609, 624 (Ala.1987). “A determination regarding a moving party’s showing of intent to discriminate under Batson is ‘ “a pure issue of fact subject to review under a deferential standard.” ’ Armstrong v. State, 710 So.2d 531, 534 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365 (1991).” Williams v. State, 55 So.3d 366, 371 (Ala.Crim.App.2010). “The trial court is in a better posi tion than the appellate court to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses.” Heard v. State, 584 So.2d 556, 561 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).

The record shows that the venire comprised over 170 prospective jurors. After jurors were removed for hardship and health reasons, the State had 31 peremptory strikes and the defense had 30 peremptory strikes. 11 (Supp. R. 47.) The actual striking of the jurors was not conducted on the record.

*125 A.

The State asserted at the Batson hearing that it struck juror R.B. because, it said, she stated during voir dire that she “did not believe in killing,” that killing went against the Bible, and that the death penalty should never be imposed. R.B. also responded that she knew Thompson’s father because he was a member of her church and that her ex-boyfriend worked for Thompson’s father. Also, the prosecutor said, in 1994 R.B. was charged with negotiating a worthless instrument. The prosecutor also said that the police chief told him that R.B. would not be a good juror because she did not like the police. 12

Defense counsel countered the prosecutor’s explanation by arguing that other jurors who had worthless-check convictions and who had reservations about the death penalty were not struck. However, defense counsel did not specifically identify any jurors who, he asserted, had been treated differently.

“It is well settled that ‘[a]s long as one reason given by the prosecutor for the strike of a potential juror is sufficiently race-neutral, a determination concerning any other reason given need not be made.’ Johnson v. State, 648 So.2d 629, 632 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). See also Jackson v. State, 791 So.2d 979 , 1009 n. 6 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Brown v. State, 705 So.2d 871, 874 (Ala.Crim.App.1997); and Wood v. State, 715 So.2d 812, 816 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), aff'd 715 So.2d 819 (Ala.1998). ‘Where a prosecutor gives a reason which may be a pretext, ... but also gives valid additional grounds for the strike, the race-neutral reasons will support the strike.’ ”

Martin v. State, 62 So.3d 1050, 1059-60 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).

Moreover, “ ‘[t]he strike of a potential juror because he knew the appellant or the appellant’s family is a valid race-neutral reason that does not violate Batson v. Kentucky, supra. Brown v. State, 623 So.2d 416 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Williams v. State, 620 So.2d 82 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).’ ” Lee v. State, 898 So.2d 790, 814 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (quoting Carroll v. State, 701 So.2d 47, 52 (Ala.Crim.App.1996)). See also Jackson v. State, 686 So.2d 429 (Ala.Crim.App.1996).

The reasons for striking juror R.B. were race neutral and did not violate Batson.

B.

The State asserted that it struck juror W.H. because she wrote on her juror questionnaire that she knew Thompson and that she could “not do this” but indicated during voir dire that she had changed her mind and now thought she could “do it.” Also, when asked whether she knew one of the police officers who was expected to testify she indicated that she did and then said “don’t ask me about him.” W.H. also went to school with Thompson, and Thompson’s father and her stepfather “hung out together.” The prosecutor also stated that W.H. “rolled her eyes” in a negative manner when he passed her. W.H. had also been prosecuted by the district attorney’s office in 2002 for harassment. Defense counsel questioned the prosecutor’s reasons for striking W.H., and the judge indicated that he had heard W.H.’s comment about one of the police officers.

“[R]ace-neutral reasons for peremptory challenges often invoke a juror’s demeanor ... making the trial court’s *126 first-hand observations of even greater importance ... We have recognized that these determinations of credibility and demeanor lie ‘ “peculiarly within a trial judge’s province,” ’ ibid, (quoting Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 (1985)), and we have stated that ‘in the absence of exceptional circumstances, we would defer to the [the trial court].’ ”

Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 477 , 128 S.Ct. 1203 , 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008).

More recently, the United States Supreme Court held:

“[W]here the explanation for a peremptory challenge is based on a prospective juror’s demeanor, the judge should take into' account, among other things, any observations of the juror that the judge was able to make during the voir dire. But Batson plainly did not go further and hold that a demeanor-based explanation must be rejected if the judge did not observe or cannot recall the juror’s demeanor.”

Thaler v. Haynes, 559 U.S. 43, 48 , 130 S.Ct. 1171 , 1174, 175 L.Ed.2d 1003 (2010).

“[T]he demeanor of a juror can also provide a sufficiently race-neutral explanation for a prosecutor’s use of a peremptory challenge.... [T]he way in which a person behaves or conducts himself, can include a number of characteristics, such as ... perceived favoritism toward the accused.” Stephens v. State, 580 So.2d 11, 19 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). “As with the state of mind of a juror, evaluation of the prosecutor’s state of mind based on demeanor and credibility lie ‘peculiarly within a trial judge’s province.’ Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 428 (1985), citing Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1038 (1984).” Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 365 .

The prosecutor’s reasons for removing juror W.H. were race neutral and did not violate Batson.

C.

Juror C.N. was struck, the prosecutor said, because she knew the defendant, had gone to school with him, and had almost completed a degree with a major in human development or childhood development, and, as the prosecutor said: “We expect that there will be a good amount of psychological expert testimony in this case and we did not want her to be basing her decision on anything other than the evidence.” (R. 1853.)

The State indicated that it struck everyone who knew the defendant. The defense objected, and the circuit court asked the State to list the jurors, both white and black, that it had struck because they knew the defendant. The prosecutor then listed the prospective jurors and stated that it would have struck all of them but defense counsel had struck some of the jurors before the State could strike them. The court found no Batson violation. There was no evidence of disparate treatment in removing jurors based on this reason.

As we stated above, “ ‘[t]he strike of a potential juror because he knew the appellant or the appellant’s family is a valid race-neutral reason that does not violate Batson v. Kentucky, supra. Brown v. State, 623 So.2d 416 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Williams v. State, 620 So.2d 82 (Ala.Cr.App.1992).’” Lee v. State, 898 So.2d 790, 814 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) (quoting Carroll v. State, 701 So.2d 47, 52 (Ala.Crim.App.1996)).

The reasons for striking juror C.N. were race neutral and did not violate Batson.

D.

The State said that juror R.N. answered on her questionnaire that she did not have a relative who had been ac *127 cused of a crime; however, during voir dire she said that her brother, who was also a member of the venire for Thompson’s trial, had been convicted of selling drugs. The prosecutor stated: “I’m concerned that that was her brother and she may harbor some resentment against the judicial system or the State or the process because of the numerous times that he was put on the spot, and even laughed about by the panel during this process.” (R. 1857.) R.N. also had children who had been prosecuted by the district attorney’s office and she knew Thompson. The court stated: “A brother or a sister of a juror that was struck for cause for being a convicted felon, I don’t know of anybody else that came up on out there.” (R. 1859.) The court found this reason to be race neutral.

“[Previous criminal charges, prosecutions, or convictions of potential jurors or their relatives [is] a race-neutral reason_” Johnson v. State, 43 So.3d 7, 12 (Ala.Crim.App.2009). See also Lee v. State, 898 So.2d 790 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Clark v. State, 896 So.2d 584 (Ala.Crim.App.2000); Thomas v. State, 611 So.2d 416 (Ala.Crim.App.1992). The prosecutor’s reason for removing juror R.N. was race neutral.

“ £A circuit court’s ruling on a Batson objection is entitled to great deference, and we will reverse such a ruling only if it is clearly erroneous.’” Brown v. State, 982 So.2d 565, 587 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (quoting Talley v. State, 687 So.2d 1261, 1267 (Ala.Crim.App.1996)). The circuit court’s denial of Thompson’s Batson motion was not clearly erroneous.

V.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the autopsy reports on the three victims to be received into evidence because, he says, they were inadmissible hearsay.

The State moved in limine that the autopsy reports prepared on the three victims be admitted into evidence. (C.R. 272.) John McDuffie, the director of the Tuscaloosa laboratory for the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, testified that the autopsies on the three victims had been performed by Dr. John Glenn. McDuffie said that Dr. Glenn no longer worked with the laboratory, that he had taken a medical retirement, and that Dr. Glenn’s medical doctor had informed McDuffie that he was not “capable of testifying.” (R. 2842.) McDuffie testified that as director he is custodian of all the autopsy reports, that the reports are completed and kept in the regular course of business, and that the reports are public records. Thompson objected to the admission of the autopsy reports, arguing that their admission without Dr. Glenn’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause. A lengthy hearing was held outside the jury’s presence. (R. 2847-60.) The circuit court determined that the reports were nontesti-monial and were admissible as business records. (R. 2861.)

Charles James, a death investigator with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, testified that he was present when Dr. Glenn performed the autopsies on the three victims and that before those autopsies he had been present when Dr. Glenn performed at least 100 autopsies. James testified that he was present when the photographs of the bodies were taken, that he was present when the bullets were removed from the bodies, and that he was present when Dr. Glenn used probes to track the trajectories of the bullet wounds.

Michael Brown, a forensic-pathology technician for the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, testified that he had assisted Dr. Glenn in approximately 300 autopsies and that he assisted him in per *128 forming the autopsies on Arnold Strickland, James Crump, and “Ace” Mealer. Brown said that he assisted Dr. Glenn in tracking and locating the trajectories or the bullet paths of the wounds on the three victims.

Dr. Adam Craig, a forensic pathologist with, the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences, testified that based on his review of the autopsy reports, the photographs taken of the bodies, and the testimony of Charles James and Michael Brown, Strickland, Crump, and Mealer all died of multiple gunshot wounds.

In Perkins v. State, 897 So.2d 457 (Ala.Crim.App.2004), we held that it was not a violation of the Confrontation Clause to admit an autopsy report without the medical examiner’s testimony or testimony indicating that he or she was not available. We stated:

“In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the United States Supreme Court held that the admission of a wife’s out-of-court statements to police officers, regarding an incident in which the defendant, her husband, allegedly stabbed the victim, violated the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court stated that an out-of-court statement by a witness that is testimonial is barred under the Confrontation Clause, unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness, regardless of whether such statement is deemed reliable by the trial court, abrogating its previous holding in Ohio v. Roberts [, 448 U.S. 56 (1980) ]. While the Supreme Court applied a stricter standard to the admission of testimonial hearsay, however, it did not do so with regard to nontestimonial hearsay, noting:

“ Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the States flexibility in their development of hearsay law — as does -Roberts, and as would an approach that exempted such statements from Confrontation Clause scrutiny altogether.’

“541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. at 1374 , 158 L.Ed.2d at 203 .

“Unlike the hearsay in Crawford v. Washington, the hearsay at issue in this case is nontestimonial in nature — an autopsy report on the victim, Wysteria Mathews. As the Court noted in White [v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (1992)]: ‘[w]here [the] proffered hearsay has sufficient guarantees of reliability to come within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule, the Confrontation Clause is satisfied.’ 502 U.S. at 356 .

“Both Alabama and federal caselaw have recognized that the business records exception is a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule. See, e.g., McNabb v. State, 887 So.2d 929, 969 (Ala.Crim.App.2001); Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. 2531 . Moreover, under Alabama law, ‘An autopsy report made in the regular course of business is admissible under the business records exception.’ 2 Charles W. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 254.01(18) (5th ed.1996) (footnote omitted). See also Adams v. State, 955 So.2d 1037, 1072-73 (Ala.Crim.App.2003); Baker v. State, 473 So.2d 1127, 1129 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). The results of Dr. Embry’s autopsy and the supporting materials are business records, which bear the earmark of reliability or probability of trustworthiness and further the ‘ “integrity of the fact-finding process,” ’ see Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1020 , 108 S.Ct. 2798 , 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988) (quoting Kentucky v. Stincer, *129 482 U.S. 730, 736 , 107 S.Ct. 2658 , 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987))....”

897 So.2d at 463-65 . See Gobble v. State, 104 So.3d 920 (Ala.Crim.App.2010); Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). See also Annot., Evidence — Con frontation Clause — Second Circuit Holds that Autopsy Reports are not Testimonial Evidence — United States v. Feliz, 467 F.3d 227 (2d Cir.2006), 120 Harv. L.Rev. 1707, 1714 (2007). In Thompson’s case, the admission of the autopsy reports, which were nontestimonial in nature, did not implicate the Confrontation Clause or Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).

Moreover, there was no dispute that the officers and the dispatcher were shot to death — Thompson did not even dispute that he shot them. Thus, even if it was error to admit the autopsy reports, that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907, 932 (Ala.Crim.App.2008).

Thompson also argues, in this section of his brief, that the circuit court erred in allowing Dr. Craig to remain in the courtroom during the testimony of Charles James and Michael Brown. See Rule 615, Ala. R. Evid.

“ ‘Although an expert witness may not express an opinion based on the opinion of another expert, he may base his opinion upon the facts testified to by another expert.’ Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 1164, 1170 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ quashed, 378 So.2d 1173 (Ala.1979). The trial court felt that in order for Dr. Embry to be able to give an opinion as to the cause of death, it was necessary for him to hear Mike Lee’s testimony. This was the reason Dr. Embry was exempted from the trial court’s sequestration order. ‘Where the rule for the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom is invoked, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to allow any one of the witnesses to remain in the courtroom during the examination of the others and the exercise of this discretion is not reviewable on appeal.’ (Citations omitted.) Jackson v. State, 502 So.2d 858, 863 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Hall v. State, 500 So.2d 1282, 1291 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Chesson v. State, 435 So.2d 177, 179 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Young v. State, 416 So.2d 1109,1111 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).”

Henderson v. State, 583 So.2d 276, 291 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). Allowing Dr. Craig to be exempted from the operation of Rule 615, Ala. R. Evid., was “a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court.” See Jackson v. State, 502 So.2d 858, 864 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). Accordingly, there is no error in regard to this claim.

VI.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in admitting into evidence photographs of the victims that, he argues, were highly prejudicial and that served no purpose but to “arouse the passion and prejudice of the jury.” (Thompson’s brief, p. 116.)

Specifically, Thompson challenges the admission of State’s exhibits 31, 32, 33— photographs of the victims as they appeared before they were murdered — and State’s exhibits 37, 38, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70-photographs of the victims’ bodies as they appeared when they were discovered at the police station.

Thompson did not object to the admission of State’s exhibits 31 through 33 and, in fact, specifically noted that he had no objection. (R. 1932; 1941.) Nor did Thompson object to the admission of State’s exhibits 38 (R. 2050); 48 (R. 2559); 49 (R. 2562); 52 (R. 2560); 53 (R. 2560); 54 (R. 2561); 55 (R. 2561); 56 (R. 2558); *130 57 (R. 2558); 58 (R. 2559); 68 (R. 2564); 65 (R. 2564); 66 (R. 2564); 67 (R. 2564); 68 (R. 2564); 69 (R. 2564), and 70 (R. 2564.) The only objection that Thompson made to any of the now-challenged photographs was to the admission of State’s exhibit 87, a photograph of Officer Strickland’s body after it was discovered. (R. 2004.) Thompson argued that it was graphic and that it appealed to the passions of the jurors and for those reasons should be excluded.

“ ‘Alabama courts have held on many occasions that photographs of the crime scene and the victims are admissible, even though they might be gruesome and cumulative, if they shed light on an issue being tried. E.g., Baird v. State, 849 So.2d 223, 246 (Ala.Crim.App.2002).’ McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191, 214 (Ala.Crim.App.2003).”

Blackmon v. State, 7 So.3d 397, 449 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).

“Photographic evidence is admissible in a criminal prosecution if it tends to prove or disprove some disputed or material issue, to illustrate some relevant fact or evidence, or to corroborate or dispute other evidence in the case. Photographs that tend to shed light on, to strengthen, or to illustrate other testimony presented may be admitted into evidence. Chunn v. State, 339 So.2d 1100, 1102 (Ala.Cr.App.1976). To be admissible, the photographic material must be a true and accurate representation of the subject that it purports to represent. Mitchell v. State, 450 So.2d 181, 184 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). The admission of such evidence lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67 , 277 So.2d 882, 883 (1973); Donahoo v. State, 505 So.2d 1067, 1071 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (videotape evidence). Photographs illustrating crime scenes have been admitted into evidence, as have photographs of victims and their wounds. E.g., Hill v. State, 516 So.2d 876 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). Furthermore, photographs that show the external wounds of a deceased victim are admissible even though the evidence is gruesome and cumulative and relates to undisputed matters. E.g., Burton v. State, 521 So.2d 91 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). Finally, photographic evidence, if relevant, is admissible even if it has a tendency to inflame the minds of the jurors. Hutto v. State, 465 So.2d 1211, 1212 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).”

Ex parte Siebert, 555 So.2d 780, 783-84 (Ala.1989).

“ ‘Courts and juries cannot be squeamish about looking at unpleasant things, objects or circumstances in proceedings to enforce the law and especially if truth is on trial. The mere fact that an item of evidence is gruesome or revolting, if it sheds light on, strengthens, or gives character to other evidence sustaining the issues in the case, should not exclude it.’ ”

Gwin v. State, 425 So.2d 500, 508 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) (quoting Baldwin v. State, 282 Ala. 653, 656 , 213 So.2d 819, 820 (1968)). The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the photographs of the victims to be admitted into evidence.

VII.

Thompson further argues that the circuit court erred in not declaring a mistrial after, he asserts, it was discovered that two jurors had been “tainted by extrinsic influences.” (Thompson’s brief, p. 62.)

The record shows that during trial defense counsel informed the circuit court that he had received an anonymous call and that the caller told him that one of the jurors had been communicating with a courtroom spectator, Cynthia Turner, a *131 former girlfriend of one of the victims. Counsel said that the caller told him that the juror and Turner had been talking at least every other day and had been e-mailing each other and that he thought that this contact was improper.

The court held an extensive hearing concerning this issue. (R. 2590-2682.) The circuit court called the juror, P.N., to question her about the allegations. The court asked P.N. if she had failed to disclose that she knew Turner, who had formerly had a relationship with Officer Crump. P.N. indicated that she did not know about Turner’s relationship and that they had not been discussing the case. The circuit court then excused P.N. from the jury. (R. 2607.)

The court then individually polled each juror to see if P.N. had spoken about the case to them. Each juror indicated that they had not discussed the case with P.N. Two jurors indicated that other people had approached them and said that they were praying for them. (R. 2664; .2670.) Both of these jurors said that the people who had told them that they were praying for them did not attempt to talk about the case or to influence them in any way. (R. 2664; 2670). Defense counsel requested a mistrial or, in the alternative,. the removal of these two jurors from the jury because, he said, the jurors might “interpret those comments about praying for them to be [saying] that they were praying that they would impose the death penalty and achieve retribution in this case.” (R. 2680.) The circuit court stated:

“I was there. The first thing is '... I didn’t see any expression of dread on her face. Those jurors, to me, were remarkable in their responses about doing their duty and their responsibilities as jurors, just as the Court has instructed them. I have been especially — I think it’s important that they be instructed. They have followed those instructions.

“We questioned them endlessly about the pretrial publicity, and to make a decision based solely on the facts and law in this case. And I think that they are — I think that is most clearly demonstrated in the questions that they were asked in chambers recently. So, your motion is denied.”

(R. 2682.) •

“ ‘Juror misconduct will justify a new trial when it indicates bias or corruption, or when the misconduct affected the verdict, or when from the extraneous facts prejudice may be presumed as a matter of law.’ Whitten v. Allstate Ins. Co., 447 So.2d 655, 658 (Ala.1984). As a general rule, ‘[w]here extraneous material [is] introduced into the jury’s deliberations, ... actual prejudice [must] be shown to work a reversal of the verdict.’ Nichols v. Seaboard Coastline Ry., 841 So.2d 671 , 672 (Ala.1976). However, in some cases, ‘the character and nature of the extraneous material ... constitutes prejudice as a matter of law and no showing that the jury was in fact influenced thereby in arriving at their verdict is necessary.’ Id. (prejudice presumed as a matter of law from jury’s consulting encyclopedia and dictionary definitions of ‘negligence,’ ‘contributory negligence,’ ‘subsequent negligence,’ and ‘subsequent contributory- negligence’).”

Minshew v. State, 594 So.2d 703, 716 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).

“Generally, under Alabama law, juror misconduct involving the introduction of extraneous materials warrants a new trial when one of two requirements is met: 1) the jury verdict is shown to have been actually prejudiced by the extraneous material; or 2) the extraneous material is of such a nature as to constitute prejudice as a matter of law. Knight v. *132 State, 710 So.2d 511, 517 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).”

Ex parte Apicella, 809 So.2d 865, 870 (Ala.2001).

Moreover,

“a presumption of prejudice applies only-in a case in which the jury’s consideration of the extraneous material was ‘ “crucial in resolving a key material issue in the case.” ’ Dawson v. State, 710 So.2d 472, 475 (Ala.1997) (citing Hallmark v. Allison, 451 So.2d 270, 271 (Ala.1984), and Ex parte Thomas, 666 So.2d 855 (Ala.1995)).”

Apicella, 809 So.2d at 872 . See also Ross v. State, 41 So.3d 106 (Ala.Crim.App.2009).

Thompson does not question the court’s removal of juror P.N., he challenges only the court’s failure to remove the two jurors who indicated that individuals had approached them and told them that they were praying for them. “Here, a relatively innocuous remark was made ... to a member or members of the jury ... T will pray for you.’ ... The comment, given its primary and generally accepted meaning, is simply not threatening.” White v. Smith, 984 F.2d 163, 166 (6th Cir.1993). The circumstances in this case do not present a case of presumed prejudice — Thompson was required to establish prejudice. See Minshew, supra. The record fails to show that Thompson met this burden. Thus, the circuit court did not err in denying Thompson’s motion for a mistrial based on a claim of alleged juror misconduct.

VIII.

Thompson asserts that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to use demonstrative aids during the presentation of its case. Specifically, he asserts that the use of mannequins, the victims’ clothing they had on when they were shot, and knitting needles to simulate the victims’ injuries was unduly prejudicial.

Defense counsel made the following objection: ‘Tour Honor, I’m sorry. I do not object to the demonstrative aid, but I do object to this witness jabbing and screwing this huge nail-looking object into this demonstrative aid head. They have some other devices they can use. That’s just too much. I’m sorry.” (R. 3013.) Counsel objected only to the use of the knitting needles to show the trajectory of the bullet wounds and specifically stated that he had no objection to the use of the mannequins.

As Professor Gamble writes:

“Some demonstrative evidence consists of the actual objects and things involved in the circumstances giving rise to the lawsuit. Other such items of evidence, however, will have played no direct role in the history of the case except in so far as they are offered for illustrative purposes. As to the latter form of evidence, a witness is called upon to describe the actual object, place or thing and this form of demonstrative evidence is offered to illustrate or clarify that testimony. The source of such evidence is generally of no consequence since it is being offered merely to explain or illustrate testimony. Consequently, the only foundational showing required for admissibility is proof that the evidence possesses sufficient accuracy as to be explanatory or illustrative of relevant testimony and thus helpful to the trier of fact. The decision of whether the offered evidence meets this particular test is vested in the trial court’s discretion.”

C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 122.01 (6th ed.2009).

“ ‘Demonstrations and experiments are permitted or prohibited in the trial court’s discretion. Thus, Alabama appellate courts have affirmed trial court *133 decisions permitting an experiment on cross-examination to test the defendant’s ability to calculate interest as he said he had; a demonstration using a mannequin and the defendant herself to discredit her assertion that the prosecuted homicide happened accidentally; a demonstration of the defendant’s version of how a fight occurred, the solicitor playing the deceased and the defendant playing himself; a demonstration wherein the defendant made prints of his bare feet in the sawdust on the courtroom floor; a demonstration by the defendant of the extent to which his injuries had impaired his ability to walk; and a demonstration between a brain damaged child and a special education therapist calculated to show the child’s physical and mental abilities.’ ”

Gobble v. State, 104 So.3d 920, 961 (Ala.Crim.App.2010) (quoting William A. Schroeder & Jerome A. Hoffman, Alabama Evidence § 12:25 (3d ed.2006) (footnotes omitted)).

“Whether to allow the prosecutor to use mannequins to aid the jury in understanding the trajectory of a bullet through a victim is within the sound discretion of the circuit court and a conviction ‘will not be reversed on appeal unless [that discretion] has been clearly and grossly abused.’ Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278 (Ala.Crim.App.1979) (citations omitted). Further, this Court has held that the use of a mannequin to demonstrate a victim’s injuries is relevant and admissible. Id.; see Minor v. State, 780 So.2d 707, 765 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), overruled on other grounds, 780 So.2d 796 (Ala.2000); see also Gobble v. State, 104 So.3d at 961 (‘Demonstrations and experiments are permitted or prohibited in the trial court’s discretion. Thus, Alabama appellate courts have affirmed trial court decisions permitting an experiment on cross-examination to test the defendant’s ability to calculate interest as he said he had; a demonstration using a mannequin and the defendant herself to discredit her assertion that the prosecuted homicide happened accidentally; a demonstration of the defendant’s version of how a fight occurred, the solicitor playing the deceased and the defendant playing himself; a demonstration wherein the defendant made prints of his bare feet in the sawdust on the courtroom floor; a demonstration by the defendant of the extent to which his injuries had impaired his ability to walk; and a demonstration between a brain damaged child and a special education therapist calculated to show the child’s physical and mental abilities.’ (quoting William A. Schroeder and Jerome A. Hoffman, Alabama Evidence § 12:25 (3d ed.2006) (footnotes omitted))).”

Mitchell v. State, 84 So.3d 968, 1006 (Ala.Crim.App.2010). See State v. Tollardo, 134 N.M. 430, 434 , 77 P.3d 1023, 1027 (2003) (“[C]ourts in other jurisdictions have affirmed the use of mannequins and dowel rods as visual aids to illustrate the trajectory of a bullet.”); State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1, 84 , 716 A.2d 395, 436 (1998) (The mannequin “[w]as unlikely to have disturbed the jury more than the photos and video, which actually showed the corpse in a pool of blood.”); State v. Holmes, 609 S.W.2d 132, 136 (Mo.1980) (“Exhibit No. 4 [a papier-mache mannequin] admittedly was an accurate portrayal of the number and location of the stab wounds. If the showing of their location and number tends to be inflammatory it is because any accurate portrayal, whether presented by oral testimony, or by a photograph, or as in this ease by use of a papier-mache mannequin, would be inflammatory. Notwithstanding its possible in *134 flammatory nature, the exhibit met every test of probativeness. The exhibit visually demonstrated the nature and location of various wounds inflicted.”); State v. Paul-sen, 265 N.W.2d 581, 589 (Iowa 1978) (“The trial court did not err in permitting [the coroner] to use the medical mannequin to demonstrate the injury to [the victim] and to amplify his testimony.”). See also B. Finberg, Annot., Propriety, in Trial of Criminal Case, of Use of Skeleton or Model of Human Body or Part, 83 A.L.R.2d 1097 (1962).

The circuit court did not abuse its considerable discretion in allowing the demonstrative aids to be used during the State’s case to show the nature and extent of the injuries that had been inflicted on the victims.

IX.

Thompson argues that the circuit court committed reversible error in allowing evidence of prior bad acts to be admitted because, he argues, this evidence was unduly prejudicial.

Thompson moved that the State disclose any Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., evidence that it intended to present at trial. (C.R. 36.) The circuit court granted the motion. (C.R. 95.) The State notified Thompson that it intended to present “evidence of the commission of other crimes on the weekend that the murders occurred, including specifically (but not limited to) the commission of one or more burglaries in Walker County, Alabama, and the theft of one or more vehicles on the same weekend.” (C.R. 194.) Thompson objected, arguing that the State should not be allowed to introduce “character evidence disguised as ‘other purposes’ under [Rule] 404(b)[, Ala. R. Evid.].” (C.R. 196.) At the pretrial hearing where this motion was discussed the prosecutor argued that the Walker County burglaries where admissible:

“[Prosecutor]: You can’t separate those out. It’s all part of one series of events. The old term to use there is the res gestae, which I know the Rules have progressed beyond that. So, we’re essentially under Rule 404(b) at this point. And 404(b) says that we can’t introduce evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts, for the purpose of proving conformity therewith. And we cannot. There’s motive issues, there’s intent issues in this case.

“At the time that the officers were murdered, one of the officers was actually printing [Thompson’s] tennis shoe, doing fingerprint-type analysis on his tennis shoe, printing it so they could see if it matched a shoe print that was on a door that had been burglarized where the car was stolen in Walker County, a dry cleaners up there.

“... In order to show why they’re printing his shoe, we’ve got to show that they were investigating a burglary that occurred in Jasper.

“And, in fact, another item of evidence that we’ll have that we could prove to the jury is a fingerprint taken out of that business in Jasper that matches [Thompson’s] fingerprint. ABI Agent Mike Manlief obtained that and did the prints on that. ■

“So, we can connect him with that burglary. We can prove that he was involved in that burglary and that that, in addition to the receiving stolen property — which one might argue is not as serious a charge — part of our proof is going to be that he knew he was involved in this Jasper burglary and, therefore, it was a greater incentive for him to take the gun away from the officer and shoot them to get away because he was not just looking at a receiving stolen property charge on a vehicle sitting down here, he’s involved in *135 criminal activity in Walker County. And one of the aggravating factors that we’re going to be relying on, if we obtain a capital murder conviction, is that the offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest or effecting an escape from custody, or that it was committed while he was in flight after committing or attempting to commit rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping, burglary in this case being the one. And, of course, robbery, also when he took the gun from the officer.

“But I don’t think you can separate that out, and I don’t think, especially at this point, that you can — that you can exclude that evidence, based on 404(b), because we’ve got a right to go into it. It’s not like it happened some other time. You know, this is all within a twenty-four hour period.”

(R. 67-72.) The circuit court reserved ruling but later allowed the State to present the collateral-crime evidence. The court specifically stated that it would give a limiting instruction on the use of the evidence when it was admitted. (R. 1800.) The court gave the following instruction:

“Ladies and gentlemen, in this case, there may be evidence that the defendant was questioned and examined about a burglary or a break-in of a dry-cleaners or some other kind of store in Jasper in Walker County. You cannot consider that evidence as proof of [Thompson’s] character to infer that he committed the acts charged in this case. However, you may consider this evidence in determining [Thompson’s] motive and intent pertaining to the acts charged in this case.”

(R. 2020; emphasis added.) Similar instructions were given at other instances when this evidence was mentioned. (R. 2344-45; 2808; 8717-18.)

Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., states:

“Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, 'knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.”

In discussing the motive-and-intent exception to the general exclusionary rule, the Alabama Supreme Court has stated:

“ ‘Intent is the ripened purpose to effect a result; while motive is the moving power which leads the mind to desire the result and form the purpose.’ Fuller v. State, 269 Ala. 312, 336 , 113 So.2d 153,175 (1959). Motive is defined as ‘an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to do or commit the crime charged.’ Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9,11 , 65 So. 972, 977 (1914). Motive has been described as ‘that state of mind which works to “supply the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge the criminal intent.” ’ [Charles Gamble, Character Evidence: A Comprehensive Approach 42 (1987).]

“Furthermore, testimony offered for the purpose of showing motive is always admissible. McClendon v. State, 243 Ala. 218 , 8 So.2d 883 (1942). Accord, Donahoo v. State, 505 So.2d 1067 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). ‘ “It is permissible in every criminal case to show that there was an influence, an inducement, operating on the accused, which may have led or tempted him to commit the offense.”

*136 McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154 [ (1878) ].’ Nickerson v. State, 205 Ala. 684, 685 , 88 So. 905, 907 (1921).”

Bowden v. State, 538 So.2d 1226, 1235 (Ala.1988). “[T]he fact that evidence tending to show a motive to do an act charged to a person would also tend to prove that person guilty of another crime is no bar to the admission of such evidence.” C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 45.01(7) (6th ed.2009).

“Evidence which pertains to an accused’s motive or intent to commit the presently-charged offense is admissible as an exception to the general exclusionary rule applying to collateral acts or offenses. Nelson v. State, 511 So.2d 225, 236 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), aff'd 511 So.2d 248 (Ala.1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1755 , 100 L.Ed.2d 217 (1988); Dyess v. State, 418 So.2d 208 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Terry v. State, 397 So.2d 217 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ denied, Ex parte Terry, 397 So.2d 223 (Ala.1981). See also C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 69.01(7) (3rd 2d 1977). ‘Moreover if the accused’s commission of another crime is admissible in a present prosecution, the State may prove in meticulous detail the manner in which the accused committed such other crime.’ (Citations omitted.) Nelson, supra at 234.”

Coleman v. State, 552 So.2d 156, 158 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).

“ ‘Motive is defined as “an inducement, or that which leads or tempts the mind to do or commit the crime charged.” Spicer v. State, 188 Ala. 9,11 , 65 So. 972, 977 (1914). Motive has been described as “that state of mind which works to ‘supply the reason that nudges the will and prods the mind to indulge the criminal intent.’ ” [Charles Gamble, Character Evidence: A Comprehensive Approach 42 (1987).]

“ ‘Furthermore, testimony offered for the purpose of showing motive is always admissible. McClendon v. State, 243 Ala. 218 , 8 So.2d 883 (1942). Accord, Donahoo v. State, 505 So.2d 1067 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). “ ‘It is permissible in every criminal case to show that there was an influence, an inducement, operating on the accused, which may have led or tempted him to commit the offense.’ McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154 [ (1878) ].” Nickerson v. State, 205 Ala. 684, 685 , 88 So. 905, 907 (1921).’ ”

Hatcher v. State, 646 So.2d 676, 679 (Ala.1994) (quoting Bowden v. State, 538 So.2d 1226, 1235 (Ala.1988)). “In Harden v. State, 211 Ala. 656 , 101 So. 442 [ (1924) ], it was said that ‘if there is any evidence tending to support a reasonable inference that the homicide was committed to conceal another crime, evidence of such other crime is admissible.’” Duncan v. State, 278 Ala. 145, 172 , 176 So.2d 840, 866 (1965).

In Ex parte Jackson, 33 So.3d 1279 (Ala.2009), the Alabama Supreme Court held that the court erroneously admitted evidence of a prior capital-murder conviction at Jackson’s capital-murder trial because the “prejudicial impact of that conviction outweigh[ed] any probative value provided by the evidence.” 33 So.3d at 1286 . The Court cautioned that Rule 404(b) evidence must be “reasonably necessary to [the State’s] case.” 33 So.3d at 1286 .

More recently, the Alabama Supreme Court again addressed the admission of Rule 404(b) evidence. In Ex parte Bill-ups, 86 So.3d 1079 (Ala.2010), the Alabama Supreme Court held that in admitting Rule 404(b) evidence the court must instruct the jury on the purpose for which the evidence was admitted and not merely recite to it the “laundry list” of Rule 404(b) exceptions. The Court stated:

*137 “By simply reciting the complete ‘laundry list’ of permissible theories under Rule 404(b), the trial court’s instruction in this case gave the jury inadequate guidance. See Ex parte Belisle, 11 So.3d 323, 333 (Ala.2008) (‘[A]n appellate court “presume[s] that the jury follows the trial court’s instructions unless there is evidence to the contrary.” ’ (quoting Cochran v. Ward, 935 So.2d 1169,1176 (Ala.2006))). The trial court’s instruction also failed to limit the State to the purposes — as nonspecific as they were — that it advanced in support of admission of the evidence regarding Bill-ups’s involvement in the Avanti East killings. Thus, we conclude that the trial court erred by fading to limit the jury’s consideration of that evidence to only those purposes for which the evidence was purportedly offered by the State (plan, identity, motive, and intent). See Huddleston, supra; cf. United States v. Tse, 375 F.3d 148, 158 (1st Cir.2004) (finding that the district court ‘adequately limited the jury’s consideration of [certain Rule 404(b) ] evidence’ when the court instructed the jury that it could not use that evidence ‘to make a propensity inference’ and that the jury could use that evidence to determine only the defendant’s ‘knowledge and intent’).”

86 So.3d at 1085 .

Here, the State was required to prove that Thompson intended to kill the three victims. Thompson’s defense was that his PTSD rendered him in a dissociative state with no specific intent to kill. The admission of the Rule 404(b) evidence to establish Thompson’s motive and intent was crucial to the State’s case. Moreover, the circuit court gave a detailed instruction on the use of such evidence in compliance with Ex parte Billups. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing this Rule 404(b) evidence to be admitted at Thompson’s trial.

X.

Thompson argues that the circuit court prevented him from presenting his defense because, he says, the court refused to allow Dr. Marianne Rosenzweig, a forensic psychologist, and Dr. Charles Nevels, a clinical psychiatrist, to testify that Thompson was in a “dissociative state on the night of the offense [and] he unconsciously reverted to the scripted behavior he learned through years of almost daily prolonged and repetitive videogame playing,” specifically, he says, the video game “Grand Theft Auto.” (Thompson’s brief, p. 9.) Specifically, Thompson asserts that this evidence was not subject to the test for “novel scientific evidence” but that it should have been evaluated under the more lenient test set out in Rule 702, Ala. R. Evid.

In his defense, Thompson presented the testimony of Dr. Marianne Rosenzweig, a forensic psychologist. She testified that she conducted a series of psychological tests on Thompson at Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility. She said that she spoke to Thompson four times in 2003, four times in 2004, and twice in 2005, and that she completed the Personality Assessment Inventory test, the Rorschach inkblot test, and the Trauma Symptom Inventory test. It was her opinion that Thompson suffered from PTSD. Dr. Rosenzweig testified that PTSD is the most severe anxiety disorder, that typically people with this illness have experienced a traumatic event or a series of traumatic events, and that some people with PTSD are unable to function. She testified that Thompson has difficulty making decisions, that he acts impulsively, that his ability to think properly is impaired, and that Thompson’s severe mental illness ren *138 dered him “incapable of appreciating the nature of his actions at the time of the alleged incident” because he was in a dissociative state. (R. 3328.)

At the conclusion of Dr. Rosenzweig’s testimony, defense counsel made a proffer, outside the presence of the jury, concerning the impact that Thompson’s playing of video games had on his' actions on the night of the murders. The circuit court indicated that it was conducting a Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), hearing to determine the admissibility of the proffered evidence. Defense counsel stated:

“We expect that Dr. Rosenzweig will testify that people with PTSD, and in particular Devin [Thompson], when they are sufficiently — receive sufficient stimulus, that they lapse off into their dissociative state; that frequently they will— to use a computer metaphor, go back to their default setting, and engage in whatever learned repetitive behavior that may have.

“Now, first of all, to distinguish that from the second issue, which is very propebly subject to a Frye standard, the second issue would be matters relating to the field of studying, for example, whether or not the playing of video games, in and of itself, contributes to aggression, contributes to violence, that sort of thing.”

(R. 3394-95.) The circuit court questioned Dr. Rosenzweig about whether there had been any studies to suggest the correlation between playing violent video games and their effect on people with PTSD. Dr. Rosenzweig testified that she had never had a patient or client who exhibited symptoms similar to Thompson’s. She said:.

“There is nothing published to my knowledge, on specifically on people who have PTSD and are in a dissociative state and how their prior experience with playing video games would affect their behavior in that state. I’m not aware of any specific study or writing in the professional literature on that.”

(R. 3421.) The circuit court found that the evidence of the frequent playing of the video game and its impact on Thompson’s conduct was inadmissible under the Frye test. (R. 3431.) Thompson objected, stating that the circuit court’s application of the Frye standard was too restrictive. (R. 3431.) On appeal, Thompson asserts that the correct standard for reviewing the admissibility of the evidence is Rule 702, Ala. R. Evid.

At the time of Thompson’s trial, Rule 702, Ala. R. Evid., provided:

“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, ■experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” 13

At the time of the offenses and at the time of Thompson’s arrest and trial, the Frye test was the correct standard for determining the admissibility of novel scientific evidence in Alabama. 14 See Ex *139 parte Perry, 586 So.2d 242 (Ala.1991). The Frye test provides:

“ ‘Just when a scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages is difficult to define. Somewhere in the twilight zone the evidential force of the principle must be recognized, and while the courts will go a long way in admitting expert testimony deduced from a well-recognized scientific principle or discovery, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.’ ”

Frye, 293 F. at 1014 (emphasis added).

In discussing the Frye standard, this court has stated:

“The admissibility of medical and scientific expert testimony is governed by the Frye test. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923); Ibm-Tamas v. United States, 455 A.2d 893 (D.C.App.1983). Under the Frye standard, expert testimony concerning a scientific or medical principle will be admissible only when the proponent of .the evidence establishes that the principle has achieved general acceptance in the scientific field to which it belongs. Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.Ápp.1985); Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827 (D.C.C.A.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 973 , 98 S.Ct. 529 , 54 L.Ed.2d 464 (1977); McCormick on Evidence, § 13 p. 31 (2d ed.1972). The danger of a jury’s according undue weight to unproven and perhaps unreliable scientific testimony justifies excluding such evidence. Frye v. United States, 293 F. at 1014 .”

Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554, 555 (Ala.Crim.App.1986).

“ ‘[T]he Frye test has been either ignored or rejected in cases in which the method used by the expert was a matter of physical comparison rather than scientific test or experiment; ... the basic data upon which the expert relied was verifiable by the factfinder; ... or where established techniques were applied to the solution of novel problems. ... Many of these cases have involved identification of bite marks by comparison of the defendant’s dental impressions to bite marks found on a victim’s body; ... and identification of footprints by comparing shoes found at the crime scene with shoes worn by the defendant; United States v. Ferri, 778 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1172 , 106 S.Ct. 2896 , 90 L.Ed.2d 983 (1986); or by comparing footprints found at the crime scene with the defendant’s feet. State v. Mark, 286 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 1980); State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129 , 322 S.E.2d 370 (1984). In such cases, the jury is in a position to weigh the probative value of the testimony without abandoning common sense and sacrificing independent judgment to the expert’s assertions based on his special skill or knowledge. People v. Marx [ 54 Cal.App.3d 100 , 126 CahRptr. 350 (1975) ].’ Furthermore, where understanding of the method is accessible to the jury, and not dependent on familiarity with highly technical or obscure scientific theories, the expert’s qualifications, and the logical bases of his opinions and conclusions can be effectively challenged by cross-examination and rebuttal evidence.’ ”

Bird v. State, 594 So.2d 644, 649 (Ala.Crim.App.1990) (quoting State v. Hasan, *140 205 Conn. 485 , 534 A.2d 877, 880 (1987)), rev’d on other grounds, 594 So.2d 676 (Ala.1991)! “The proponent of the [novel scientific test] ha[s] the burden of demonstrating compliance with the Frye test.” Prewitt v. State, 460 So.2d 296, 302 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). 15

“In Alabama, by statute, the Daubert [v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) ] standard applies only to the admissibility of DNA evidence. § 36-18-30, Ala.Code 1975; Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301 (Ala.2003); Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Washington, 774 So.2d 505 , 516 n. 5 (Ala.2000); Turner v. State, 746 So.2d 355 (Ala.1998); Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).

“ “With respect to expert scientific testimony on subjects other than DNA techniques governed by § 36-18-30, Frye remains the standard of admissibility in Alabama. See Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992); Rivers v. Black, 259 Ala. 528 , 68 So.2d 2 (1953).’

“Turner, 746 So.2d at 361 n. 7. See also Minor, supra; Parker v. State, 777 So.2d 937 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). Finally, Rule 702, Ala. R. Evid., governs the admissibility of nonscientific expert testimony. See Minor, supra; Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App.1999).”

Barber v. State, 952 So.2d 393, 407 (Ala.Crim.App.2005).

Alabama has applied the Frye test in the following cases: Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Sawyer, 901 So.2d 738 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (admission of asbestosis evidence); Clemons v. State, 55 So.3d 314 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), rev’d on other grounds, 55 So.3d 348 (Ala.2007) (admission of positron emission tomograph (“PET”) scan to diagnose old brain injury); Hoosier v. State, 612 So.2d 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992) (admission of battering-parent profile); Prewitt v. State, supra (admission of hypnotically induced recollection); Hill v. State, 507 So.2d 554 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (admission of evidence of battered-wife syndrome); Wynn v. State, 423 So.2d 294 (Ala.Crim.App.1982) (admission of polygraph examinations).

In Simmons v. State, 797 So.2d 1134 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), an agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that his analysis of the crime scene and other evidence of the offense indicated that the crime was sexually motivated. 797 So.2d at 1150. This Court held that the testimony was not based on novel scientific evidence. Rather, it was based on the witness’s specialized knowledge regarding victimology, as well as crime-scene analysis. Thus, this Court held that the testi *141 mony was not subject to the Frye analysis. We stated:

“Crime-scene analysis and victimology do not rest on scientific principles like those contemplated in Frye ; these fields constitute specialized knowledge. Specialized knowledge offers subjective observations and comparisons based on the expert’s training, skill, or experience that may be helpful to the jury in understanding or determining the facts. Crime-scene analysis, which involves the gathering and analysis of physical evidence, is generally recognized as a body of specialized knowledge. See generally 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 417b at 499 (1979); State v. Russell, 125 Wash.2d 24 , 882 P.2d 747 (1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1129 , 115 S.Ct. 2004 , 131 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1995); United States v. Meeks, 35 M.J. 64 (C.M.A.1992); People v. Nolan, 152 Ill.App.3d 260 , 105 Ill.Dec. 336 , 504 N.E.2d 205 (1987); and Hill v. State, 647 S.W.2d 306 (Tex.App.1982). Therefore, because crime-scene analysis is not scientific evidence, we conclude that we are not bound by the test enunciated in Frye . Cf. Ex parte Dolvin, 391 So.2d 677 (Ala.1980) (holding that Frye was inapplicable when evidence is in the nature of physical comparisons as opposed to scientific tests or experiments).”

797 So.2d at 1151.

Recently, the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, — U.S. —, 131 S.Ct. 2729 , 180 L.Ed.2d 708 (2011), addressed the validity of a California statute that prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors. In response to the State of California’s argument that the State had a compelling interest in monitoring the sale of the violent video games because, California said, violent video games caused violent behavior, the United States Supreme Court made the following comments:

“California relies primarily on the research of ... psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children. These studies have been rejected by every court to consider them, and with good reason: They do not prove that violent video games cause minors to act aggressively (which would at least be a beginning). Instead, ‘[njearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology.’ Video Software Dealers Assn. [v. Schwarzenegger ], 556 F.3d [950] at 964 [(9th Cir.2009)]. They show at best some correlation between exposure to violent entertainment and minuscule real-world effect, such as children’s feeling more aggressive or making louder noises in the few minutes after playing a violent game than after playing a nonviolent game.”

— U.S. at—, 131 S.Ct. at 2739 .

Other courts have noted the lack of scientific evidence connecting the frequent playing of violent video games to violent behavior. See Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Granholm, 426 F.Supp.2d 646, 653 (E.D.Mich.2006) (“[Sjtudies have not provided any evidence that the relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior exists. His tests fail to prove that ‘video games have ever caused anyone to commit a violent act, as opposed to feeling aggressive, or have caused the average level of violence to increase anywhere.’ ”); Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, 404 F.Supp.2d 1051, 1063 (N.D.Ill.2005) (“Even if one were to accept the proposition that playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts or *142 behavior, there is no evidence that this effect is at all significant.”).

Here, the circuit court allowed Thompson’s two experts to testify that Thompson had PTSD and that he was in a dissociative state at the time of the murders. What the court did not allow was testimony that Thompson “unconsciously reverted to the scripted behavior he learned through years of almost daily prolonged and repetitive videogame playing.” (Thompson’s brief, p. 9.) This testimony is not consistent with the testimony that Alabama has held is nonscientific evidence, testimony concerning physical comparisons, that was subject to admissibility under the more lenient Rule 702, Ala. R. Evid., test, but is scientific-theory evidence subject to admissibility under the Frye test. Indeed, studies that have been conducted on the impact of the frequent playing of violent video games have not gained general acceptance in the scientific community. See, e.g., Brown v. Entm’t Merchs., supra. The circuit court did not err in evaluating this evidence under the Frye standard and disallowing this testimony because it failed to satisfy that test. Accordingly, we find no reversible error in the circuit court’s ruling excluding the above evidence.

XI.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in allowing one of the State’s rebuttal witnesses, Morris Moore, to testify. Specifically, he argues that Moore was the principal at a school where one of the jurors was a teacher and that their close relationship violated the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 , 85 S.Ct. 546 , 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965), and the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte Pierce, 851 So.2d 618 (Ala.2002), and warrants reversal.

When Moore was called to testify Thompson objected and argued:

“[Defense counsel]: I understand from the State that he, Mr. Morris Moore, indicated that one of the jurors had made some comment to him about she is ready for the case to be over or some — something along those lines, which would, at least implicitly, indicate some feeling about the case. We just believe that it’s improper for a witness who’s had any communication with the jurors, even obliquely concerning the case, to testify.”

(R. 3605; emphasis added.) The State responded that it did not subpoena Moore until after counsel had spoken to Thompson’s medical expert and that he learned only about 20 minutes before Moore was called to the stand that there was a teacher on the jury. (R. 3606.) The circuit court then questioned Moore. Moore said that he was the principal at Hubbertsville High School, that the day he was testifying was his first day on that job, and that one of the teachers at Hubbertsville High School was on the jury. The only discussion that he had with this juror, Moore said, consisted of the juror’s stating that she wished the case would be over soon because she did not want the school term to start with a substitute teacher and Moore replying that he might be called as a witness. Moore said that the juror did not ask any questions concerning his possible testimony and that he did not volunteer any information. The court allowed Moore to testify in rebuttal. (R. 3611.)

At trial, Thompson did not make the same argument he now makes on appeal. Thompson’s argument at trial was merely that Moore could not testify because he had had a conversation with a juror. However, on appeal Thompson argues that, based on Moore’s close contact with a juror, Turner and Pierce require that his *143 conviction be reversed. Therefore, we review this claim for plain, error. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.

“In both Turner [v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965),] and Ex parte Pierce, [ 851 So.2d 606 (Ala.2000),] the jurors had close and continual contact with key prosecution witnesses throughout the trial; specifically, the law-enforcement officers who were in charge of taking care of the jury, who transported the jurors to and from their lodging each day, who ate meals with the jurors, and who conversed with the jurors on a regular basis throughout the trial, were key prosecution witnesses in both Turner and Ex parte Pierce. Based on this situation, the United States Supreme Court held in Turner, and the Alabama Supreme Court held in Ex parte Pierce, that the defendant’s due-process right to a fair trial by an impartial jury was violated and that prejudice could be presumed from such close and continual contact even if there was no evidence to show that the law-enforcement officers had discussed the facts of the case with the jurors. Specifically, the Court in Turner stated that ‘it would be blinking reality not to recognize the extreme prejudice inherent in this continual association throughout the trial between the jurors and these two key witnesses for the prosecution.’ 379 U.S. at 478 , 85 S.Ct. 546 .”

Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372, 412-13 (Ala.Crim.App.2004).

In this case, Moore was one of five witnesses called by the State to rebut Thompson’s mental-health testimony. Dr. Brent Willis, a psychologist at Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility, testified as a rebuttal witness that he had conducted a mental evaluation on Thompson in November 2004. It was his opinion that the test results were invalid because Thompson “over-endorsed a number of- symptoms.” He testified that he believed that Thompson had PTSD but that he was malingering and that he was not in a dissociative state when he killed the officers and the police dispatcher. Sue Tucker, one of Thompson’s ninth-grade teachers, testified in rebuttal that she did not see Thompson exhibit any signs of mental illness. Gail Crump, one of Thompson’s teachers at an alternative school in 2003, testified that in the nine weeks Thompson was in the alternative school for disciplinary problems she did not see him exhibit any mental-health problems. Morris Moore, one of Thompson’s ninth-grade teachers, testified that he taught Thompson history and that he never saw any indication that Thompson suffered from any mental illness nor was he a disciplinary problem. Dr. Kathleen Ronan, a clinical psychologist, testified that she had examined some of Thompson’s records and his statement to police and did not believe that he was in a dissociative state at the time of the murders because his statement was very detailed. She said that typically a person in a dissociative state has no recall of the incident and if the person has any recall it is very hazy.

“In both Turner [v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (1965),] and [Ex parte ] Pierce, [ 851 So.2d 606 (Ala.2000) ], prejudice was presumed because of the close and continual contact between the key witness and a juror. Pierce, 851 So.2d at 610. However, in this case the contact was not close and continual. ‘[Prejudice cannot be presumed under the facts in this case as it was in Turner and Ex parte Pierce; rather, as this Court held in Myers v. State, 677 So.2d 807, 810 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), “[i]n order to be entitled to [relief] due to contact by a juror with witnesses or others, prejudice must be shown.” ’ Minor [v. State ], 914 So.2d [372] 443 [ (Ala.Crim.App.2004) ].”

*144 Gobble v. State, 104 So.3d 920, 950 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).

Here, the contact between Moore and the juror was not “close and continual” nor was Moore a key State witness. Accordingly, prejudice is not presumed. Thompson was required to establish prejudice. See Gobble. Thompson failed to meet this burden. Accordingly, we find no violation of Turner or Pierce in this case.

XII.

Thompson next argues that the State violated the discovery order by failing to disclose statements that he made to medical personnel while in custody at Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility for his mental evaluation.

To rebut Thompson’s expert testimony that he was in a dissociative state at the time of the shootings, the State presented the testimony of Dr. Brent Willis. Dr. Willis testified that in his opinion Thompson was not in a dissociative state at the time of the murders. He then stated his reasons for this conclusion and commented on the statements Thompson had made to him about the murders. Thompson objected and argued that an order had been issued to Taylor Hardin concerning discovery but that Taylor Hardin had disclosed only the materials it had used in testing and evaluating Thompson and not notes that were taken during Dr. Willis’s interview with Thompson. Thompson then moved that this evidence be excluded. The State asserted that Dr. Willis had not been allowed to discuss the interview until Thompson raised a mental-illness defense and that the details of Dr. Willis’s interview with Thompson were not known to the State until they were presented in open court. 16 It asserted that the statements to Dr. Willis were not within the State’s control. After the circuit court questioned the State and clarified on the record that the information in Dr. Willis’s notes was not in any documents that the State had, the circuit court denied the motion to exclude the statements. (R. 3498-99.) Thus, in the present case, there was no evidence indicating that the State knew about the information in Dr. Willis’s notes, nor was there any evidence from which that knowledge could be imputed to the State or presumed. Accordingly, there was no violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), in this instance. See Parker v. State, 587 So.2d 1072, 1086 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (“ While it is true that under Brady the good faith of the prosecutor in not disclosing information is irrelevant, Brady does require that the information requested be known to the prosecution .... [T]hat knowledge may be presumed, as when the information is in *145 the prosecutor’s files(citations omitted)).

Furthermore, in Pace v. State, 714 So.2d 320 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), rev’d in part on other grounds, 714 So.2d 332 (Ala.1997), the defendant asserted that the lower court erred in not granting him expanded discovery in documents from several jails, the Alabama Department of Corrections, and Taylor Hardin Secure Medical Facility. - In affirming the circuit court’s denial of the discovery motion, we stated:

“There is no constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case; discovery is governed by Rule 16, Ala. R.Crim. P. Jefferson v. State, 645 So.2d 313 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). What the appellant sought in this case was full-blown discovery equivalent to that in a civil case. While the decision in [Ex parte] Monk[, 557 So.2d 832 (Ala.1989),] broadened discovery in capital cases, a prosecutor in a criminal case is not required to disclose evidence the prosecutor does not possess, except that evidence that is imputed — such as knowledge of law enforcement agents.”

714 So.2d at 330-31.

The statements Thompson made to medical personnel at Taylor Hardin were not in the State’s possession nor was knowledge of the statements imputed to the State. There was no discovery violation in this case. Thus, the circuit court committed no error in regard to this claim.

XIII.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the statements he made to Dr. Willis during his mental evaluation to be admitted because, he says, the admission of the statements violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

Dr. Willis testified in rebuttal concerning statements Thompson made to him during his mental evaluation. Dr. Willis testified that Thompson told him that “he done a lot of stupid stuff. He broke into a lot of places. He said, ‘people call me Spiderman because I was so athletic.’ He said, T broke into' a place and got clothes and stole a Camry and went home.’ ” (R. 3491.) The following then occurred:

“[Defense counsel]: We’re going to object to him referring to matters that are not relevant to his diagnosis. He had been — he has a limited confidentiality stipulation when.he is interviewing him to (inaudible) relevant only to his competency at the time of the offense and not all this other stuff.

“[Prosecutor]: We think it’s absolutely admissible. The defense has been raised. He based his diagnosis on this interview with him.

“The Court: He asked him and he specifically said, ‘as to that issue only, not competency.’

“[Prosecutor]: Yeah, not competency to stand trial.

“The Court: Overruled.

“[Defense counsel]: No, no, I don’t mean competency to stand trial. When they go in there, Judge, they tell them that what we’re telling you is — what you’re about to tell me is confidential, except as it relates to your mental state at the time of the' offense, which has nothing — what he just said has nothing to do with that.

“The Court: He just said it did.

“[Prosecutor]: He said it did.

“The Court: Overruled. Overruled.”

(R. 3491-92.)

Rule 11.2(b)(2), Ala. R.Crim. P., states:

“The results of mental examinations made pursuant to subsection (a)(2) [mental condition at the time of offense] *146 of this rule and the results of similar examinations regarding the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense conducted pursuant to Rule 11.4 shall be admissible in evidence on the issue of the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense only if the defendant has not subsequently withdrawn his or her plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Whether the examination is conducted with or without the defendant’s consent, no statement made by the defendant during the course of the examination, no testimony by an examining psychiatrist or psychologist based upon such a statement shall.be admitted against the defendant in any criminal proceeding, except on an issue respecting mental condition on which the defendant has testified.” 17

(Emphasis added.)

The Alabama Supreme Court has strictly construed Rule 11.2(b)(2), Ala. R.Crim. P., to limit the admissibility of statements made by a defendant during a mental evaluation to only those situations where the defendant has testified. The Supreme Court stated:

“The plain language of Rule 11.2(b)(2) unequivocally forbids the admission of statements made by a defendant or evidence derived from the defendant’s statements during a pretrial mental examination unless the defendant testifies about his or her mental condition. Consequently, because Brownfield did not testify at his trial, applying the plain language of Rule 11.2(b)(2), we must conclude that error occurred in the admission of Dr. Clinger’s testimony concerning statements Brownfield made during the mental examinations. Although it was proper to admit into evidence Dr. Clinger’s testimony regarding her opinion about Brownfield’s mental condition at the time of the offenses, the admission of her testimony regarding statements made by Brownfield during the mental examinations was error.”

Ex parte Brownfield, 44 So.Bd 43, 47-48 (Ala.2009).

Ultimately the Supreme Court upheld the admission of statements Brownfield made during his mental evaluation by concluding that the admission of the statements was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Brownfield Court further stated:

“The inquiry, however, does not end here. This Court must determine whether it ‘appear[s] that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected [Brownfield’s] substantial rights.’ Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P., provides:

“ ‘No judgment may be reversed or set aside, nor new trial granted in any civil or criminal case on the ground of misdirection of the jury, the giving or refusal of special charges or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, nor for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which the appeal is taken or application is made, after an examination of the entire cause, it should appear that the error complained of has probably injuriously affected substantial rights of the parties.’

“The Court of Criminal Appeals has further stated with regard to the application of the harmless-error rule:

“ ‘ “ ‘After finding error, an appellate court may still affirm a conviction on the ground that the error was harmless, if indeed it was.’ *147 Guthrie v. State, 616 So.2d 914, 981 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)', citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). ‘The harmless error rule applies in capital cases.’ Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 469 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), opinion after remand, 686 So.2d 484 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), aff'd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1199 , 117 S.Ct. 1559 , 137 L.Ed.2d 706 (1997), citing Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241 (Ala.1983). ‘In order for a constitutional error to be deemed harmless under Chapman , the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Rule 45, the state must establish that the error did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.’ Coral v. State, 628 So.2d 954, 973 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), opinion after remand, 628 So.2d 988 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 628 So.2d 1004 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1012 , 114 S.Ct. 1387 , 128 L.Ed.2d 61 (1994). ‘The purpose of the harmless error rule is to avoid setting aside a conviction or sentence for small errors or defects that have little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of the trial or sentencing.’ Davis v. State, 718 So.2d 1148, 1164 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 718 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1179 , 119 S.Ct. 1117 , 143 L.Ed.2d 112 (1999).”

‘“McNabb v. State, 887 So.2d 929, 976-77 (Ala.Crim.App.2001).’

“Sale v. State, 8 So.3d 330, 347 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). See also Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933 (Ala.2008) (holding that the alleged improper admission of evidence in a capital trial was harmless);

Cothren v. State, 705 So.2d 849 (Ala.Crim.App.1997) (holding that the improper admission of the defendant’s coerced confession was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence establishing that the defendant committed the capital offense).

“In this case, a review of the record establishes that the admission of Dr. Clinger’s testimony was harmless; the improperly admitted evidence could not have probably injuriously affected Brownfield’s substantial rights. The admission of testimony regarding Brownfield’s statements concerning his education and work experience is harmless because those statements are not relevant to whether Brownfield committed the offense or to his mental condition at the time of the offense. Consequently, testimony concerning those statements could not have probably injuriously affected Brownfield’s substantial rights. Likewise, Dr. Clinger’s testimony regarding Brownfield’s recollection of the events on December 23, 24, and 25, 2001, could not have probably injuriously affected Brownfield’s substantial rights because statements Brownfield made to law-enforcement officers on December 25 and 26, 2001, had been previously admitted into evidence and established with greater detail what Brownfield recalled regarding the events leading up to and following the murders.”

Brownfield, 44 So.3d at 47-49 .

In this case, Thompson’s detailed confession was admitted into evidence. Thompson’s confession was significantly more incriminating than were the statements he made to Dr. Willis. Accordingly, the admission of statements made by Thompson to Dr. Willis during his mental evaluation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Brownfield, supra. We find no reversible error in regard to this claim.

*148 XIV.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court erred in allowing evidence of his behavioral problems in school to be admitted during Gail Crump’s testimony in the guilt phase.

The State called Crump to testify in rebuttal concerning Thompson’s mental health. Crump testified that she supervised Thompson when he was in the alternative school, that he was in the alternative-school program twice for a total of 12 weeks in the fall of 2003, and that he received counseling while in the program. She said that she did not refer him to mental-health counseling and that all the students in that program received counseling for their behavioral problems.

Thompson argued the following: “[W]e’re going to object to this line of questioning. It’s nothing more than thinly disguised evidence of bad character, talking about all of this Alternative School and people with behavioral problems and this — all this counseling for behavioral problems.” (R. 3571). The State asserted that the evidence was relevant to show the basis of Crump’s knowledge concerning Thompson’s mental condition. The Court held: “Based upon the defense in this case, based upon the evidence elicited by [Thompson], the objection is overruled.” 18 (R. 3572.)

“ ‘ “Rebuttal evidence, even evidence of prior crimes, is generally admissible within the sound discretion of the trial court. Vincent v. State, 231 Ala. 657 , 165 So. 844 (1936); Jones v. State, [ 362 So.2d 1303 (Ala.Cr.App.1978) ]; Norris v. State, 429 So.2d 649 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).” Peterson v. State, 452 So.2d 1372 (Ala.Cr.App.1984).’ Campbell v. State, 508 So.2d 1186, 1189 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).”

Walker v. State, 631 So.2d 294, 301 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

“ ‘It has long been held that “wide latitude” is allowed both the defendant and the state in inquiries into a person’s mental state when an issue as to the sanity of such person is presented.’ Barbour v. State, 262 Ala. 297, 303 , 78 So.2d 328, 333 (1954); Peoples v. State, 257 Ala. 295 , 58 So.2d 599 (1952); Smith v. State, 257 Ala. 47 , 57 So.2d 513 (1952); Hall v. State, 248 Ala. 33 , 26 So.2d 566 (1946); Parvin v. State, 248 Ala. 74 , 26 So.2d 573 (1946); Eldridge v. State, 247 Ala. 153 , 22 So.2d 713 (1945). ‘Where insanity is relied upon as a defense, every act of the accused’s life which throws some light on such issue is relevant thereto.’ Nichols v. State, 276 Ala. 209, 211 , 160 So.2d 619, 621 (1964). ‘These inquiries, however, are subject to the necessary limitation that the acts, declarations and conduct inquired about must have a tendency to shed light on the accused’s state of mind when the act for which he is being tried was committed.’ Barbour, supra, 262 Ala. at 303 , 78 So.2d at 333 .”

Ex parte Vaughn, 869 So.2d 1090, 1095 (Ala.2002).

As Professor Gamble writes:

“As a general proposition, evidence of the conduct and condition of a person whose mental capacity is material is ad *149 missible whether such conduct or condition occurs at, near, prior, or subsequent to the time in issue. It commonly is said that, upon the issue of mental capacity, wide latitude must be allowed all parties in making proof. We have statements to the effect that every act of a person’s life is relevant to the issue of that person’s mental capacity. However, it is generally agreed that this ‘every act’ rule must be understood to carry the necessary limitation that the acts inquired about must possess a tendency to make more probable the mental capacity existing at the time in issue.”

C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 61.01(6) (6th ed.2009).

Crump’s testimony was admissible to rebut the testimony of Thompson’s experts concerning his mental condition. See Vaughn, supra. Thus, there was no error in the admission of Crump’s testimony.

XV.

Thompson next argues that the circuit court made several erroneous rulings that, he says, denied him a fair trial. We will address each claim individually.

A.

First, Thompson argues that it was error for the circuit court to admit a copy of a mug shot of Thompson and fingerprints from a drink can because the original mug shot and drink can were not available.

Danny Jenkins, the chief agent for the Twenty-Fourth Circuit Drug Task Force, testified that on June 7, 2003, he was called to the Fayette Police Department. When he arrived he surveyed the scene and discovered, on top of a filing cabinet in the booking room, two Polaroid instant photographs of Thompson. Those photographs were scanned. The prosecutor introduced the scanned photographs of Thompson into evidence. Jenkins testified that the scanned copy was an accurate copy of the original photographs. Thompson objected, arguing that the copies were not the originals. The prosecutor responded that the originals had been lost. The circuit court allowed the copies to be admitted into evidence. (R. 2046.)

“A duplicate is admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.” See Rule 1003, Ala. R. Evid. The circuit court did not err in allowing the scanned copy of the photographs of Thompson to be admitted into evidence.

Gail Peters, a latent-print examiner with the Alabama Department of Public Safety, testified that she received a fingerprint for comparison in Thompson’s case. The print, she said, had been lifted from a Mountain Dew soft-drink can that had been collected from a dry-cleaning business that had been burglarized. Thompson objected and argued that the soft-drink can had not been given to counsel during discovery. The State argued that the can could not be located but that a proper chain of custody for the fingerprint taken from the can had been established. The court allowed the fingerprint to be received into evidence. (R. 2806.) The fingerprint matched Thompson’s fingerprint.

“The Alabama Supreme Court, in Ex parte Gingo, 605 So.2d 1237 (Ala.1992), adopted the United States Supreme Court’s position in Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 , 109 S.Ct. 333 , 102 L.Ed.2d 281 (1988), regarding the allegations that the state failed to preserve evidence potentially useful to the defense:

*150 “‘“[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” Young-blood, 488 U.S. at 58 , 109 S.Ct. at 337 . “The presence or absence of bad faith by the police for purposes of the Due Process Clause must necessarily turn on the police’s knowledge of the exculpatory value of the evidence at the time it was lost or destroyed.” Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 57 (footnote), 109 S.Ct. at 337 (footnote), citing Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269 , 79 S.Ct. 1173, 1177 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959).’

“605 So.2d at 1240-41. Gingo additionally recognized that a defendant’s right to due process can be violated when the loss or destruction is of evidence so critical to the defense that its loss or destruction makes the trial fundamentally unfair. Id. (citing Youngblood, 488 U.S. at 67 , 109 S.Ct. at 342 ).”

May v. State, 710 So.2d 1362, 1369-70 (Ala.Crim.App.1997).

The Arizona Court of Appeals when considering a similar issue stated: “In reviewing whether a defendant has been denied a fair trial due to the destruction of evidence, the court must look to the circumstances of each p

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.