# McCray v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · December 17, 2010 · 88 So. 3d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4873150

## Case

- **Full name:** Heath Lavon McCRAY v. STATE of Alabama
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** December 17, 2010
- **Citations:** 88 So. 3d 1; 2010 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 136; 2010 WL 5130747
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Windom
- **Judges:** Kellum, Main, Welch, Windom, Wise
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4873150

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that first-person argument that only included reasonable inferences from the evidence was not error
- holding that no error occurred by the prosecutor’s relaying to the jury what the victim might say when the statements contained therein are based on the evidence presented at trial
- holding that the State’s use of its last 7 strikes against women did not establish a pattern
- noting that, when the history of discrimination is attenuated, "this factor, based on the passage of time, does not establish a prima facie case of ... discrimination"

## Opinion text

WINDOM, Judge.
Heath Lavon McCray appeals his capital-murder conviction and sentence of death. McCray was convicted of murder made capital because it was committed during the course of a burglary, see § 13A-5-40(a)(4), Ala.Code 1975. After the penalty phase of the trial, see §§ 13A-5-45 and -46, Ala.Code 1975, the jury unanimously recommended that McCray be sentenced to death. After receiving a presentence report and conducting a separate sentencing hearing, see § 13A-5-47, Ala.Code 1975, the trial court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced McCray to death.
The evidence adduced at trial indicated the following. On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, Brandy Jean Bachelder’s body was found in her mobile home in the Cayman Bay Trailer Park in Dothan. Testimony indicated that Bachelder had been living with McCray for approximately a year and a half before her death, but that on Thursday, August 4, 2005, Bachelder had asked McCray to move out of the mobile home.
Rolande Dean, Bachelder’s mother, testified that she had visited her daughter at her mobile home on Thursday, August 4, 2005, at which time Bachelder told McCray that he had to leave. According to Dean, McCray left with a bag of clothing. After McCray left, Bachelder left the mobile home for a short time and returned with two new door knobs to replace the door knobs on the front and back doors of the mobile home. Dean said that she noticed that night that Bachelder and McCray were interacting differently than they had previously and that it appeared as if Ba-chelder was afraid of McCray.
Dean testified that she spoke with Ba-chelder on the telephone the next day, as well as on Saturday and Sunday, and that she saw Bachelder the morning of Monday, August 8, 2005, before Bachelder took her son to school and then went to work at the local Family Dollar discount store. Dean also said that she spoke with Ba-chelder during the day on Monday while Bachelder was at work. She tried telephoning Bachelder Monday night, Tuesday during the day, and Tuesday night, but was unable to reach her. On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, Dean went to the Family Dollar store to look for Bachelder, who was supposed to work that day, but she was not there. Dean then went to Ba-chelder’s mobile home, saw blood on the front door, and notified the manager of the trailer park, who notified police.
Tim Miller, an officer with the Dothan Police Department, testified that on August 10, 2005, he went to the Cayman Bay Trailer Park and spoke with the manager and with Dean, who was visibly upset. Officer Miller saw bloodstains on the front door, which was locked, 1 so he used a cement block he found on the ground to force the front door open. Immediately upon the door opening, Officer Miller saw “blood everywhere.” (R. 401.) Miller stated there was blood all over the living-room floor and all over the couch in the living room, and that there was a blood trail through the kitchen and down the hallway. The blood trail appeared to be from someone being dragged; he found Bachelder’s body lying in the hallway. After finding her body, Officer Miller secured the scene, and several other police officers and paramedics arrived. There did not appear to be any lights on in the mobile home when he entered and he saw footprints in the blood trail leading down the hallway. A dog was shut inside one of *9 the bedrooms and was later removed from the scene.
The State’s theory of the case was that two days before Bachelder’s body was found, while Bachelder was at work, McCray broke into Bachelder’s mobile home using a screwdriver. McCray then locked Bachelder’s dog in a bedroom and stripped down to his underwear to avoid contaminating his clothing. McCray then unscrewed all the light bulbs in the mobile home so that it would be dark inside when Bachelder got home and removed the batteries from the cordless telephone so she could not call for help. After disabling the lights and telephone, McCray waited for Bachelder to arrive home, at which point he brutally attacked her with a butcher knife as revenge for ending their relationship. McCray covered his hands with a pair of socks to avoid leaving his fingerprints at the scene and following the attack washed the blood off his body in the bathtub, got dressed, and fled the scene.
Mike Etress, a corporal with the criminal investigations division of the Dothan Police Department, was in charge of the investigation and went to the scene the day Bachelder was found. He testified that there was a large amount of blood throughout Bachelder’s mobile home and that various items in the mobile home were strewn about indicating that a struggle had taken place. In addition, Cpl. Etress noticed there were several footprints in the blood throughout the mobile home. The floor of the mobile home had a type of tile that is secured with adhesive, so Cpl. Etress was able to remove 12 of the tiles containing the footprints and secure them as evidence. He also took several samples of the blood from various locations in the mobile home. There were no lights on in the mobile home when he arrived, and, when he checked the lights, he discovered that all but one of the light bulbs in the mobile home had been unscrewed to stop them from working. The only working light bulb in the mobile home was in the hood over the oven. Cpl. Etress collected the light bulbs in the mobile home as evidence. He also found a pair of socks on the living-room floor lying in blood, a Pepsi brand soda bottle lying in blood on the living-room floor, a cordless telephone with the batteries removed lying on the living-room floor, and a butcher knife — believed to be the murder weapon — lying on the sofa, all of which were collected and secured as evidence. One of the drawers in the kitchen, which contained kitchen utensils, was open and there was a pool of blood in it. Blood was also found in the bathroom, but the blood in the bathroom appeared to be diluted, as if someone had tried to wash off blood in the bathtub. No box cutter was found in the mobile home. 2
Cpl. Etress described the condition of Bachelder’s body, both when he arrived at the scene and when he attended the autopsy the following day. Bachelder had a plastic bag secured tightly around her head; a black dog leash was looped into a noose around her neck. Bachelder’s shorts were down around her ankles, her underwear had been torn in half, and she was covered in blood. He observed several stab wounds to Bachelder’s neck and chest, as well as several cuts on her fingers and a deep wound between her forefinger and thumb that went almost to the bone. During the autopsy, Cpl. Etress again saw the wounds to Bachelder’s neck, which appeared consistent in width with the butcher knife that had been found on *10 the sofa. He also saw a knife wound near Bachelder’s elbow that went completely through her arm. That wound was also consistent in width to the butcher knife. Cpl. Etress further described the numerous wounds to Bachelder’s hands as defensive wounds that occurred when Bachelder “had grabbed the knife while she was being stabbed.” (R. 594.) He also saw several puncture wounds to Bachelder’s chest, including one to her left breast that went “completely through” the breast. (R. 595.) The width of that wound was consistent with the width of the butcher knife found at the scene.
Dr. Stephen Boudreau, a medical examiner with the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (“DFS”), testified that he was present when the autopsy was performed on Bachelder on August 11, 2005. 3 Bachelder had several wounds to her hands — a deep gash on her right hand at the base of her thumb, a continuous gash across the middle of three of the fingers on her left hand, and a gash along the side of her left hand — all of which, Dr. Boudreau said, would have caused Bachelder pain and severe bleeding. The gash across the fingers on Bachelder’s left hand was most likely caused by Bachelder grabbing a sharp object. In addition, Bachelder had wounds to her arms — one large stab wound to her left elbow that began on the top of the elbow and went completely through to the underside of the upper part of the arm, as well as a deep cut on her forearm. Both arm wounds were consistent with having been caused by the butcher knife found at the scene and would also have caused pain and severe bleeding. Bachelder had two deep stab wounds and several superficial cuts on her neck, all of which were consistent with having been caused by the butcher knife at the scene and would have caused pain and severe bleeding. One of the deep stab wounds on the right side of the neck actually cut Bachelder’s carotid artery, which would have caused blood to “spurt” in all directions. (R. 759.) Based on the location and direction of the wounds on Bachelder’s neck, they were all inflicted separately. Bachelder also had wounds to her breast and genitals. Specifically, Bachelder suffered a stab wound to her left breast that began on the underside of the breast and penetrated through the entire breast tissue, ending on the top part of the breast. This wound was at least four inches long and was also consistent with having been caused by the butcher knife found at the scene. Dr. Boudreau also stated that this wound would have been “very painful” and would have caused bleeding. (R. 771.) In addition, Bachelder also suffered a cut that “went up through the wall of the vagina.” (R. 779.) This particular wound was also consistent with having been made by the butcher knife found at the scene; “[m]ost assuredly” would have been painful; would have caused bleeding; and could have caused death eventually if left untreated, but that it was not the cause of Bachelder’s death. (R. 779.)
Bachelder had a total of nine “major” stab wounds as well as numerous other superficial stab wounds and cuts on her body. (R. 778.) Bachelder also had numerous bruises and contusions on her body, including on her neck, arms, hands, torso, and legs. The bruises on Bachelder’s neck were consistent with having been caused by the dog leash that had been found around her neck. Based on his examination of the wounds, Dr. Boudreau believed that Bachelder was alive when all the wounds were inflicted and that the wound on the neck that cut the carotid *11 artery was ultimately the fatal wound. Dr. Boudreau opined that the cause of Bachelder’s death was exsanguination and that, depending on the sequence of the wounds, Bachelder could have survived anywhere from a few minutes to over 15 minutes before she died.
Kristen Maturi, a forensic biologist with DFS, testified that some of the blood samples taken from Bachelder’s mobile home matched her DNA and that some of the blood samples taken from Bachelder’s mobile home consisted of a mixture of two DNA profiles — Bachelder’s and McCray’s. Both Bachelder’s and McCray’s DNA were found on the blade of the butcher knife. Shannon Fitzgerald, a certified latent-print examiner with the Alabama Bureau of Investigation, testified that he matched the footprints on the tiles from the mobile home to the known footprints of McCray, which had been taken after his arrest. He also tested 13 light bulbs from the scene and obtained a latent print from 1 bulb, which matched McCray’s known thumbprint. Finally, he compared latent prints found on Bachelder’s telephone to McCray’s known fingerprints and found that a print on the telephone matched McCray’s thumbprint.
Frank Meredith, a detective with the Dothan Police Department, testified that at approximately 1:00 p.m. on the afternoon that Baehelder’s body was found, McCray voluntarily came to the police station as a result of a BOLO (“be on the lookout”) that had been issued for him that morning. Detective Meredith initially escorted McCray to the conference room of the investigations division and advised McCray of his Miranda 4 rights, although when McCray initially arrived he was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time. Detective Meredith testified that McCray indicated that he understood his rights, agreed to waive his rights, and did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. Detective Meredith further testified that neither he nor the other officer present promised McCray anything in order to get McCray to make a statement.
When speaking with McCray, Detective Meredith noticed a long scratch on McCray’s neck. McCray told Detective Meredith that he had scraped his neck in an attic where he was spraying insulation. At approximately 3:00 p.m. that afternoon, Detective Meredith obtained consent from McCray to take a DNA sample from him. McCray subsequently gave a recorded statement to Detective Meredith and Michael Cirulli, a sergeant with the Dothan Police Department, at approximately 7:00 p.m. that evening. 5
In his recorded statement, McCray provided several different versions of the events of Monday, August 8, 2005. McCray initially denied being present at Bachelder’s mobile home or even seeing or speaking with Bachelder that day. He said that he and Bachelder were together the Friday night before her murder and had gone bowling. Afterwards, he claimed that he and Bachelder had had consensual sex and that he had spent the night at Bachelder’s mobile home. McCray stated that the next morning Bachelder drove him to his mother’s house and dropped him off. McCray said that he did not see or speak with Bachelder again that Saturday, but that on the Sunday morning be *12 fore her murder, she came to his mother’s house to see him. McCray stated that the Sunday morning before Bachelder’s murder was the last time he saw or spoke to her. After further questioning, McCray changed his story and stated that he had spoken with Baehelder on the telephone on Sunday afternoon. Later in his statement, McCray again changed his story, admitting that he went to Bachelder’s mobile home Monday afternoon. McCray said that he had spoken to Baehelder on the telephone Monday morning while she was at work and that they had agreed to meet that evening at Bachelder’s mobile home. According to McCray, because he had lost his key to the mobile home, he told Baehelder that he would use a screwdriver to enter the mobile home when he got off work that afternoon and would then wait for her to come home from work. McCray said that he arrived at Bachelder’s mobile home about 4:00 p.m. and watched television until Baehelder got home from work at approximately 7:30 p.m., at which point, he and Baehelder talked for about an hour and he then left and walked to his nephew’s apartment.
■With respect to the cut on his hand and the scratches on his neck, McCray gave varying explanations throughout his recorded statement. McCray first said that he had cut his hand on Monday night while working on his nephew’s automobile. However, after being confronted with the fact that his nephew had told law-enforcement officers that McCray had not recently worked on his automobile, McCray then stated that he had cut his hand when he was walking from Bachelder’s mobile home to his nephew’s apartment that Monday night. Specifically, McCray stated that while walking to his nephew’s apartment, he tried to break up a fight between two men, one of whom had a knife and cut his hand. Later in his statement, McCray said that he had intentionally cut his own hand with a piece of glass he had found lying on the ground after he had left Ba-chelder’s mobile home Monday night. Finally, McCray stated that he had intentionally cut his own hand with a butcher knife while he was at Bachelder’s mobile home because he was so upset that their relationship had ended. McCray also initially said that he had scratched his neck on some conduit while at work, but then changed his story and said one of his young nephews had accidentally scratched his neck while they were wrestling. Throughout his recorded statement, McCray denied any involvement in Ba-chelder’s murder.
To establish the falsity of McCray’s varying stories in his recorded statement, the State presented testimony from Al-phonzo Sanders, McCray’s nephew, who stated that McCray had not worked on his automobile in the days surrounding Ba-chelder’s murder. Sanders said that McCray had telephoned him on Monday, August 8, 2005, at approximately 5:00 p.m. and asked him if he was going to be home later that evening. At approximately 9:00 p.m. that night, McCray came to his apartment. Sanders saw scratches on McCray’s neck and a cut on McCray’s hand. According to Sanders, McCray said that he had been with a woman and was caught by the woman’s boyfriend or husband, who pulled a knife on him and cut him. Sanders took McCray to the hospital for treatment for the cut.
Avery Lerenzo Sanders, another of McCray’s nephews, testified that he was at his brother’s apartment Monday, August 8, 2005, when McCray came over. Avery Sanders also saw a cut on McCray’s hand and heard McCray say that he had been with a woman and was caught by the woman’s boyfriend or husband, who pulled a knife and cut him.
*13 Zaccheus McCray, who was not related to McCray, but was a coworker of McCray’s at Southeast Construction, testified that he worked with McCray on Monday, August 8, 2005. Zaccheus said he saw no cuts or scratches on McCray at that time and that McCray did not suffer any cuts or scratches while working that day. After work that afternoon, he drove McCray to the Cayman Bay Trailer Park and dropped him off. The following morning, McCray arrived at work with what appeared to be fingernail scratches on his neck. When asked how he got the scratches, McCray told Zaccheus that he had been “tussling” with his nephews the night before and had accidentally gotten scratched by their fingernails. (R. 859.) After work on Tuesday, August 8, 2005, he drove McCray to McCray’s mother’s house in Ashford and dropped him off.
The main defense theory of the case was heat of passion — specifically, that McCray had gone to Bachelder’s mobile home, with permission, simply to talk to her and that Bachelder had attacked him with the butcher knife, at which point he lost control and stabbed her to death. McCray testified on his own behalf. He stated that he and two of his three sons had lived with Bachelder at her mobile home for approximately a year and a half before her death. He said that his relationship with Bachelder was calm in the beginning but that when he started speaking to, and seeing more of, his ex-wife, Tammy Tidwell, their relationship changed, and Bachelder would get aggravated easily and “was mean to [him].” (R. 876.) According to McCray, Bachelder always carried a box cutter on her person, and sometimes she would take it out and say she was going to cut him with it. In early August 2005, McCray said, he moved out of Bachelder’s mobile home. He testified that he and Bachelder had purchased a van together but that he had missed some payments and the van had been repossessed. He and Bachelder had discussed the situation the week before her death, on a Monday evening, not Thursday evening as Bachelder’s mother testified, and they had agreed that he and his sons should leave and move in with his mother. On Tuesday, McCray said, he packed his clothing and his two sons’ clothing, and Tidwell and a friend helped him move to his mother’s residence. McCray said that he did not take everything he owned from the mobile home at that time, only clothing.
According to McCray, the Friday night before her death, he and Bachelder went bowling together. Afterwards, he spent the night with Bachelder at the mobile home. The following morning, Bachelder drove him to his mother’s house and then went to work. On Sunday morning, McCray said, Bachelder-came to his mother’s house and they spoke for about an hour before Bachelder went to work. McCray said that he did not see or speak with Bachelder again that day.
McCray testified that on Monday, August 8, 2005, a coworker drove him to Bachelder’s mobile home after work, at approximately 3:00 p.m., so that he could speak to her about her son. Because he had lost his key to the mobile home approximately two weeks before he moved out, he used a screwdriver to gain entrance to the mobile home, like he had done in the past. According to McCray, he watched television until Bachelder got home from work between 7:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., at which point they talked. McCray stated that the conversation was initially calm, but when he mentioned his ex-wife, Bachelder got “really upset” and they got into a physical altercation. (R. 891.) McCray claimed that Bachelder swung her hand and scratched him on his neck with her fingernails. According to McCray, Bachelder then got a knife out of *14 a drawer in the kitchen and swung it at him. McCray claimed that he put his arm up to block the knife and was cut on his right hand.
McCray testified that he then became angry and “lost it.” (R. 896.) McCray said that he got the knife out of Bachelder’s hand and began cutting her. He could not remember how many times he had cut or stabbed Bachelder, but he believed it was more than once. McCray admitted that when the altercation first began— before Bachelder had allegedly gotten the knife — he had grabbed a dog leash that was hanging on the wall and had wrapped it around Bachelder’s neck. He remembered dragging Bachelder around the mobile home by the dog leash around her neck, but he did not recall putting the plastic bag over her head. McCray denied that he had covered his hands during the fight, but admitted that he had washed his hands after he killed Bachelder. When he first arrived at Baehelder’s mobile home, he took off his pants and his shoes and socks, and when Bachelder got home, he was clad only in his underwear and a t-shirt. He admitted that it was unusual that light bulbs inside Bachelder’s mobile home would all be unscrewed, but nonetheless he and Bachelder had had problems in the past with light fixtures, particularly with the ceiling fan in the living room. According to McCray, the light fixture in the ceiling fan was broken, and the only way to turn the light off was to unscrew the light bulb. McCray denied having had any contact, either with his body or with any object, with Baehelder’s genital area during the fight.
McCray testified that he did not remember what time he left Bachelder’s home that night but that when he left, he walked to his nephew’s apartment. His nephew drove him to a friend’s house, who was not at home at the time, and then to his mother’s house, where he checked on his children. After checking on his children, McCray asked his nephew to take him to the medical center, where he received stitches to his hand. He then went back to his mother’s house and watched television with his children. McCray did not tell anyone about what had happened, and he went to work the next day, Tuesday, and again on Wednesday.
McCray said that he left work early on Wednesday and went to the police station, where he was questioned. He admitted that he initially lied to the police about the scratches on his neck and the cut on his hand and that he lied when he told police he had not seen Bachelder that Monday.
On cross-examination, McCray admitted that he had lied to the police repeatedly during his recorded statement and that he had also lied to his nephews and to the doctors at the medical center about the cuts, all in an effort to protect himself. McCray admitted that nothing had prevented him from leaving Bachelder’s mobile home during his fight with Bachelder. He also admitted that he had put on his pants, shoes, socks, and another shirt over his T-shirt before he had left so that no one would see the blood. He further admitted that after he had left that night, he put the clothing he had been wearing that day in the garbage. He also changed his testimony and admitted to putting the plastic bag over Bachelder’s head. McCray said that, while he was stabbing Bachelder, she opened the front door in an effort to escape, but he dragged her back into the mobile home by the dog leash. McCray also admitted that Bachelder was screaming and begging for her life when he was repeatedly stabbing her, but that he wanted Bachelder to die so that she could not identify him. Finally, McCray admitted that he had a previous conviction for domestic violence in the second degree *15 relating to an incident with his ex-wife. McCray stated that he had held a knife to Tidwell’s throat and that he had pleaded guilty to the domestic-violence charge, but he denied that he had actually cut Tid-well’s throat or hand.
Standard of Review
Because McCray has been sentenced to death, according to Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P., this Court must search the record for “plain error.” Rule 45A states:
“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 probably has adversely affected the substantial right of the appellant.”
(Emphasis ádded.)
In Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933 (Ala.2008), the Alabama Supreme Court explained:
“ ‘ “To rise to the level of plain error, the claimed error must not only seriously affect a defendant’s ‘substantial rights,’ but it must also have an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury’s deliberations.”’ Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724, 727 (Ala.2002) (quoting Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 199, 209 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998)). In United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 , 105 S.Ct. 1038 , 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985), the United States Supreme Court, construing the federal plain-error rule, stated:
“ ‘The Rule authorizes the Courts of Appeals to correct only “particularly egregious errors,” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 [ 102 S.Ct. 1584 , 71 L.Ed.2d 816 ] (1982), those errors that “seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. [157], at 160 [ 56 S.Ct. 391 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)]. In other words, the 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.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S., at 163, n. 14 .’
“See also Ex parte Hodges, 856 So.2d 936, 947-48 (Ala.2003) (recognizing that plain error exists only if failure to recognize the error would ‘seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings,’ and that the plain-error doctrine is to be ‘used sparingly, solely in those circumstances in which a miscar-riáge of justice would otherwise result’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).”
11 So.3d at 938 . “The standard of review in reviewing a claim under the plain-error doctrine is stricter than the standard used in reviewing an issue that was properly raised in the trial court or on appeal.” Hall v. State, 820 So.2d 113, 121 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 820 So.2d 152 (Ala.2001). Although McCray’s failure to object at trial will not bar this Court from reviewing any issue, it will weigh against any claim of prejudice. See Dill v. State, 600 So.2d 343 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), aff'd, 600 So.2d 372 (Ala.1992).
I.
McCray first contends that the State exercised its peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner against both African-Americans and women, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), and J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127 , 114 S.Ct. 1419 , 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994), and that this Court should remand this cause for a hearing at which the State would be required to provide race-neutral and gender-neutral reasons for its strikes. This Court disagrees.
*16 The initial list of prospective jurors contained in the record consists of 236 names. However, the strike list contained only 128 names, and prospective jurors nos. 101 through 128 on that list are crossed out with a large “X,” indicating that those prospective jurors were not on the venire panel for McCray’s trial. In addition, 30 of the first 100 names listed on the strike list are crossed out with no explanation. 6 Although the transcript indicates that the roll of prospective jurors was called at the beginning of voir dire, the court reporter did not transcribe the roll call. Therefore, this Court cannot positively determine whether all 100 veniremembers listed on the jury strike list were present at the beginning of voir dire or whether only the 70 prospective jurors whose names were not crossed out were present. However, given that the trial court granted McCray’s pretrial motion for a full recor-dation of all the proceedings, 7 that the trial court stated after the roll call that all prospective jurors were present, that none of the 30 names that are crossed out on the jury strike list appear anywhere in the transcript, and that neither party makes any argument (or even acknowledges) these 30 prospective jurors whose names are crossed out on the strike list, this Court must presume that those 30 prospective jurors were excused before voir dire ever began, and that only 70 venire-members appeared for voir dire.
Of those initial 70 veniremembers, there were 34 men, 36 women, 57 Caucasians, 12 African-Americans, and 1 whose race was listed on the venire list as “other.” (C. 366-89.) The transcript indicates that after the trial court’s initial qualification and questioning of the venire, the court excused 11 prospective jurors for medical, employment, and personal reasons. Of those 11 jurors, 6 were men, 5 were women, 7 were Caucasian, and 4 were African-American. Additionally, following a lunch break (which occurred during the defense’s voir dire questioning), the trial court excused another juror, a Caucasian male, for being late returning from the lunch break. After the trial court’s excusáis, 58 venire-members remained, of whom 27 were men, 31 were women, 49 were Caucasian, 8 were African-American, and 1 was another race. The record indicates that after the group and individual voir dire questioning, 8 the trial court granted 15 challenges for cause. Those jurors removed for cause included 4 men, 11 women, 9 Caucasians, 5 African-Americans, and the prospective juror whose race was listed as “other.” All five African-Americans removed for cause were challenged by the State.
*17 Following the challenges for cause, 43 veniremembers remained, from which the parties struck the jury. Of those 43, 23 were men, 20 were women, 40 were Caucasian, and 3 were African-American. The State was given 16 peremptory strikes and the defense 15 peremptory strikes, with the last strike of each party sitting as an alternate. The State used 11 of its 16 strikes to remove women and 2 of its strikes to remove African-Americans. The defense used 11 of its 15 strikes to remove men and all of its strikes to remove Caucasians. McCray’s jury consisted of 8 men, 4 women, 11 Caucasians, and 1 African-American, and 1 alternate was a Caucasian female and the other alternate was a Caucasian male.
After the jury was struck, McCray made a timely Batson motion, arguing that the State had struck two of the only three African-Americans remaining on the veni-re after excusáis and challenges for cause. 9 After questioning by the trial court, defense counsel also noted that the State had used its fourth and seventh strikes against those prospective African-American jurors. The trial court denied the motion, finding that McCray had failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination on the part of the State. McCray did not make a J.E.B. motion in the trial court.
“ ‘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.’ ” Vanpelt v. State, 74 So.3d 32, 54 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (quoting Yancey v. State, 813 So.2d 1, 3 (Ala.Crim.App.2001)). “To find plain error in the context of a Batson or J.E.B. violation, the record must supply an inference that the prosecutor was ‘engaged in the practice of purposeful discrimination.’ ” Blackmon v. State, 7 So.3d 397, 425 (Ala.Crim.App.2005) (quoting Ex parte Watkins, 509 So.2d 1074, 1076 (Ala.1987)). See also Saunders v. State, 10 So.3d 53, 78 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (“For an appellate court to find plain error in the Batson [or J.E.B.] context, the court must find that the record raises an inference of purposeful discrimination by the State in the exercise of peremptory challenges.”).
In evaluating a Batson , or J.E.B., claim, a three-step process must be followed. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 , 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003):
“First, a defendant must make a prima facie showing that a peremptory challenge has been exercised on the basis of race. [Batson v. Kentucky,] 476 U.S. [79,] 96-97 [, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 1723 (1986) ]. Second, if that showing has been made, the prosecution must offer a race-neutral basis for striking the juror in question. Id., at 97-98 . Third, in light of the parties’ submissions, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination. Id., at 98 .”
537 U.S. at 328-29 , 123 S.Ct. 1029 .
With respect to the first step of the process — the step at issue here in both the Batson and J.E.B. contexts — “[t]he party alleging discriminatory use of a peremptory strike bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination.” Ex parte Brooks, 695 So.2d 184, 190 (Ala.1997). “A defendant makes out a pri-ma facie case of discriminatory jury selection by ‘the totality of the relevant facts’ surrounding a prosecutor’s conduct during *18 the defendant’s trial.” Lewis v. State, 24 So.3d 480, 489 (Ala.Crim.App.2006) (quoting Batson, supra at 94 , 106 S.Ct. 1712 ), aff'd, 24 So.3d 540 (Ala.2009). “In determining whether there is a prima facie case, the court is to consider ‘all relevant circumstances’ which could lead to an inference of discrimination.” Ex parte Branch, 526 So.2d 609, 622 (Ala.1987). In Ex parte Branch, the Alabama Supreme Court specifically set forth a number of “relevant circumstances” to consider in determining whether a prima facie case of racial discrimination has been established:
“The following are illustrative of the types of evidence that can be used to raise the inference of discrimination:
“1. Evidence that the ‘jurors in question share[d] only this one characteristic — their membership in the group— and that in all other respects they [were] as heterogeneous as the community as a whole.’ [People v.] Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d [258] at 280, 583 P.2d [748] at 764, 148 Cal.Rptr. [890] at 905 [ (1978) ]. For instance ‘it may be significant that the persons challenged, although all black, include both men and women and are a variety of ages, occupations, and social or economic conditions,’ Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 280, 583 P.2d at 764, 148 Cal.Rptr. at 905, n. 27, indicating that race was the deciding factor.
“2. A pattern of strikes against black jurors on the particular venire; e.g., 4 of 6 peremptory challenges were used to strike black jurors. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 .
“3. The past conduct of the state’s attorney in using peremptory challenges to strike all blacks from the jury venire. Swain [v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 , 85 S.Ct. 824 , 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965) ].
“4. The type and manner of the state’s attorney’s questions and statements during voir dire, including nothing more than desultory voir dire. Batson, 476 U.S. at 97 , 106 S.Ct. at 1723 ; Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d at 281, 583 P.2d at 764, 148 Cal.Rptr. at 905.
“5. The type and manner of questions directed to the challenged juror, including a lack of questions, or a lack of meaningful questions. Slappy v. State, 503 So.2d 350, 355 , (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987); People v. Turner, 42 Cal.3d 711 , 726 P.2d 102 , 230 Cal.Rptr. 656 (1986); People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal.3d 258 , 583 P.2d 748, 764 , 148 Cal.Rptr. 890 (1978).
“6. Disparate treatment of members of the jury venire with the same characteristics, or who answer a question in the same or similar manner; e.g., in Slappy , a black elementary school teacher was struck as being potentially too liberal because of his job, but a white elementary school teacher was not challenged. Slappy, 503 So.2d at 352 and 355.
“7. Disparate examination of members of the venire; e.g., in Slappy , a question designed to provoke a certain response that is likely to disqualify a juror was asked to black jurors, but not to white jurors. Slappy, 503 So.2d at 355 .
“8. Circumstantial evidence of intent may be proven by disparate impact where all or most of the challenges were used to strike blacks from the jury. Batson, 476 U.S. at 93 , 106 S.Ct. at 1721 ; Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. [229] at 242, 96 S.Ct. [2040] at 2049 [ 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976) ].
“9. The state used peremptory challenges to dismiss all or most black jurors. See Slappy, 503 So.2d at 354 , Turner, supra.”
526 So.2d at 622-23 . In Ex parte Trawick, 698 So.2d 162 (Ala.1997), the Court reiterated the Ex parte Branch factors in a manner applicable to gender as follows:
*19 “(1) evidence that the jurors in question shared only the characteristic of gender and were in all other respects as hete-rogenous as the community as a whole; (2) a pattern of strikes against jurors of one gender on the particular venire; (3) the past conduct of the state’s attorney in using peremptory challenges to strike members of one gender; (4) the type and manner of the state’s questions and statements during voir dire; (5) the type and manner of questions directed to the challenged juror, including a lack of questions; (6) disparate treatment of members of the jury venire who had the same characteristics or who answered a question in the same manner or in a similar manner; and (7) separate examination of members of the venire. Additionally, the court may consider whether the State used all or most of its strikes against members of one gender.”
698 So.2d at 168 .
With these principles in mind, this Court will address each of McCray’s claims in turn.
A.
McCray first argues that the State exercised its peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner against women. Because this claim is being raised for the first time on appeal, this Court reviews it for plain error only. See Rule 45A, Ala. RApp. P. Specifically, McCray contends that the record raises an inference of purposeful discrimination on the part of the State because almost all the factors listed in Ex parte Branch and Ex parte Trawick are present in his case. This Court disagrees.
In support of his argument, McCray asserts that the number and pattern of the State’s strikes support an inference of discrimination against women. As noted above, the State used 11 of its 16 peremptory strikes to remove women from the venire. However, the State’s first two strikes were against men, the next five strikes were against women, the next two were strikes against men, and the final seven strikes were against women. Because there was no apparent pattern of strikes against women, the State’s use of 11 of its 16 peremptory strikes against women does not raise an inference of gender discrimination. See Ex parte Land, 678 So.2d 224, 246 (Ala.1996) (holding that the State’s use of 11 of its 14 peremptory strikes against whites did not raise an inference that the State purposefully discriminated against whites). In addition, the defense used 11 of its 15 strikes against men, striking only 4 women, and 4 women ultimately sat on McCray’s jury, with one of the alternates also being a woman.
McCray also argues that the Houston County District Attorney’s Office “has a long history of using its peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner.” (McCray’s brief, at 16.) Although McCray cites to numerous opinions from this Court, in which this Court either reversed a defendant’s conviction on the ground that the Houston County District Attorney’s Office had discriminated against African-Americans in using its peremptory strikes or remanded the cause for a hearing on a claim that the Houston County District Attorney’s Office had discriminated against African-Americans in using its peremptory strikes, McCray cites to only a single case, Morris v. City of Dothan, 659 So.2d 979 (Ala.Crim.App.1994), from Houston County involving gender discrimination. This Court’s opinion in Morris, 659 So.2d at 979 , however, resulted from an appeal from a municipal conviction that the Houston County District Attor- *20 nejfs Office was not involved in. 10 Although not cited by McCray, in Floyd v. State, [Ms. CR-05-0935, September 28, 2007] — So.3d-(Ala.Crim.App.2007), this Court remanded for a hearing on the defendant’s claim that the Houston County District Attorney’s Office had engaged in gender discrimination; however, on return to remand, this Court upheld the trial court’s finding that the Houston County District Attorney’s Office had not engaged in gender discrimination. As noted in Ex parte Trawick, in determining whether a prima facie case of gender discrimination has been established, courts should look at “the past conduct of the state’s attorney in using peremptory challenges to strike members of one gender.” 698 So.2d at 168 (emphasis added). In this case, McCray has cited nothing indicating a history on the part of the Houston County District Attorney’s Office of engaging in gender discrimination, nor does the record reflect any such history. Therefore, this factor does not support an inference of gender discrimination.
McCray also argues that the women struck by the State shared only the characteristic of gender and were heterogeneous in all other respects, specifically pointing out that the 11 women struck varied in age, race, employment, and marital status. However, there is almost always going to be some variance among prospective jurors who are struck; therefore, this alone does not establish heterogeneity of the struck veniremembers so as to support an inference of discrimination. The question, as noted in both Ex parte Branch and Ex parte Trawick, is whether the struck jurors shared only the characteristic at issue, in this case, gender. The record here does not reflect that the women struck shared only the characteristic of gender. To the contrary, the record reflects that many of the women struck shared similar characteristics other than gender.
For example, three of the women struck had previously sat on criminal juries as alternates but were not aware of the outcome of those trials. Only one other juror had sat on a criminal jury as an alternate, a Caucasian male, but he knew that the trial resulted in a guilty verdict, and he was struck by the defense using its seventh strike. Similarly, the State struck the only two prospective jurors, both women, who had sat on a criminal jury that had ended in a not-guilty verdict or in a hung jury. Although two other jurors who had previously sat on criminal juries, one man and one woman, sat on McCray’s jury, the male juror indicated during voir dire that the defendant in his previous jury service had pleaded guilty before jury deliberations had begun, and the female juror indicated that the jury in her previous service had returned a guilty verdict. Two of the women struck by the State had family members who had been convicted of crimes. In addition, another two of the women struck by the State responded during group voir dire that they had never seen anyone who had ever been cut or stabbed with a knife — only five prospective jurors responded in that manner: two were removed for cause, one was struck by the defense using its eighth strike, and the State struck the only remaining two who had never seen anyone cut or stabbed with a knife. Based on these facts, the women struck by the State in this case were not heterogeneous in all respects but gender; therefore, this factor does not support an inference of discrimination.
*21 McCray also argues that there was a lack of meaningful questioning by the State, indicating an intent to discriminate against women. Although McCray is correct that two of the women struck by the State answered no questions during voir dire and the record reflects that four of the men who ultimately sat on McCray’s jury answered no questions during voir dire, 11 the record also reflects that one of the men struck by the State also answered no questions during voir dire and that three of the four women who sat on McCray’s jury also answered no questions during voir dire. In addition, the record reflects no disparate questioning by the State between male and female jurors. As explained in note 8, supra, after the court and the parties questioned the venire as a whole, 21 veniremembers were also questioned individually. Of those 21, 12 were women and 9 were men. The record reflects that the majority of the individual voir dire questioning was conducted by the trial court and that, in most instances, the parties did not question the jurors. However, the record reflects that the State did pose questions to three of the prospective jurors, two of whom were women. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find that the State’s striking of two women who answered no questions during voir due or anything in the manner or type of questioning by the State during voir dire supports an inference of gender discrimination.
Finally, McCray argues that the State engaged in disparate treatment of male and female jurors, specifically arguing that the State struck one female juror, V.A., who, he says, answered a question during voir dire similarly to a male juror, R.G., who was not struck and who actually sat on McCray’s jury. However, McCray’s argument in this regard is not supported by the record. One of the elements of capital murder the State was required to prove in this case was that McCray had entered or remained unlawfully in Ba-chelder’s mobile home. The State sought to prove that McCray entered or remained unlawfully in the trailer by presenting evidence indicating that McCray had used a screwdriver to break into the mobile home. McCray, on the other hand, asserted that Bachelder had asked him to come to the trailer and had agreed that he could use the screwdriver to enter the trailer. During group voir dire by the State, the following occurred:
“[Prosecutor]: Okay. Let me ask you this, if I could: Anybody that’s ever allowed during your lifetime — just raise your hand. I need you to give me a response, so we can take it down. Anybody that’s ever dated someone, socialized, girlfriend, boyfriend, a common law husband and wife relationship, whatever, that you ever dated someone, and they ever had to use a screwdriver to get into your house? In other words, someone you dated socially, boyfriend, girlfriend — I don’t want to be real specific— but did you have to allow them to use a screwdriver to get into your locked house? Anybody ever do that? Anybody over here?
“PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I lost my key before. My husband [has] had to use a screwdriver to get in.
“[Prosecutor]: Your husband. Right? That’s fíne.
“And your name? I’m sorry, Judge....
“PROSPECTIVE JUROR: It’s [V.A.].
*22 “[Prosecutor]: Thank you, [V.A.] Thank you for standing up.
“How about this side? Anybody’s boyfriend or whatever that needed a screwdriver to break into the house? That’s no. Correct?
“(No response.)
“[Prosecutor]: How about over here?
“PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I’ve had to do it to my own.
“[Prosecutor]: Had to do it to your own house. Your name?
“PROSPECTIVE JUROR: [R.G.].
“[Prosecutor]: [R.G.], you have had to do it to your own house.
“Okay. That would be included — I am talking about you were dating, socializing, whoever it was, they had to use it to get in.”
(R. 78-79.)
It appears from the above-quoted portion of voir dire that the State’s purpose in asking the question above was to determine whether anyone had allowed someone else to use a screwdriver to break into his or her home. Although the prosecutor stated to R.G., “[t]hat would be included,” based on the prosecutor’s statement immediately following that — “I am talking about you were dating, socializing, whoever it was, they had to use it to get in” — it appears either that the prosecutor misspoke when he said “[t]hat would be included,” or that the record contains a typographical error, and the prosecutor actually stated, or meant to state, “[t]hat would [not ] be included.” (R. 79; emphasis added.) Given the specific circumstances of this case — in which someone else, not Bachelder, used a screwdriver to break into the mobile home — R.G.’s response that he had used a screwdriver himself to break into his own home and V.A.’s response that she had allowed her husband to use a screwdriver to break into her home, were not so substantially similar as to support an inference of discrimination. In addition, this Court specifically rejects McCray’s argument that, in asking the question, the State “was interested in people who had let someone that they were dating or living with, but not legally married to, use a screwdriver to gain access to their home.” (McCray’s brief, at 6.) The State specifically mentioned common-law husbands and wives, thus showing that the State was interested not only in dating relationships or living arrangements, but also with marriages.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no error, much less plain error, as to this claim.
B.
McCray also argues that he established a prima facie case of racial discrimination; therefore, the trial court erred in failing to require the State to give its reasons for striking African-Americans pursuant to Batson . McCray also asserts that the court found that he had failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination based on an improper ground.
In support of his arguments, McCray maintains the State’s use of two of its peremptory strikes to remove two of the three remaining African-American prospective jurors, combined with the history of discrimination in the Houston County District Attorney’s Office, establishes a prima facie case of discrimination. In his supplemental brief, McCray also argues that, in addition to its two peremptory strikes against African-American jurors, the State challenged five African-American jurors for cause, thus removing a total of seven of the eight African-American jurors remaining on the venire after the trial court’s excusáis. McCray further asserts that based on the United States *23 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in McGahee v. Alabama Department of Corrections, 560 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir.2009), this Court should consider the State’s challenges for cause as a relevant factor supporting a prima facie case of racial discrimination. 12 McCray finally maintains that the trial court denied his motion solely because one African-American juror was seated on the jury, which he believes is an improper ground for denying a Batson motion.
Initially, this Court notes that although McCray argued at trial that the State had struck two of the three remaining African-Americans on the venire and he excepted to the trial court’s denial of his Batson motion, McCray did not argue at trial that the Houston County District Attorney’s Office had a history of discrimination, nor did he argue that the trial court’s reasoning for denying the motion was flawed; therefore, these arguments are being raised for the first time on appeal and are reviewed for plain error. See Rule 45A, Ala. RApp. P. With respect to McCray’s argument that the trial court denied his Batson motion on an improper ground, this Court observes that the trial court did not deny the motion solely because one African-American sat on the jury. Nor did the trial court, as McCray asserts, “assume[ ] that the presence of one black person on the jury negated the illegal exclusion of other black jurors.” (McCray’s brief, at 23.) Rather, the record reflects that after McCray made his Batson motion, the court specifically questioned him regarding “the sequence” of the State’s strikes against two African-American veniremembers. (R. 213.) Defense counsel indicated that the State had used its fourth and seventh strikes against the two African-Americans, and the trial court noted by name the specific African-American jurors who had been struck by the State. The trial court then denied the Batson motion, stating: “Well, with that sequence of strikes and the fact that there is one black on, I will deny the motion for lack of a prima facie case.” (R. 214.) The trial court clearly did not deny McCray’s motion solely because one African-American was seated on his jury. Instead, it examined the number of strikes against African-Americans, the sequence of the State’s strikes against African-Americans, and the names of the prospective jurors struck, before denying McCray’s Batson motion. Consequently, this Court’s reading of the statement made by the trial court in denying McCray’s Batson motion, in the context of the record, leads it to conclude that in making the statement the trial court was merely trying to mention only a couple of the factors it had considered and that its denial of McCray’s motion was not based on these two factors alone.
Moreover, contrary to McCray’s argument, the number of African-Americans seated on the jury is, in fact, a relevant circumstance to consider in determining whether a prima facie case of racial discrimination has been established. As this Court stated in Mitchell v. State, 579 So.2d 45 (Ala.Crim.App.1991):
“ ‘[A] prima facie case may be made where relevant circumstances indicate an inference of purposeful race discrimination no matter that one or more black persons may remain on the jury.’ United States v. Wilson, 884 F.2d 1121, 1123 (8th Cir.1989). ‘The striking of one ven-ireperson for a racial reason violate[s] the Equal Protection Clause, even when valid reasons for striking some black jurors are shown.’ Williams v. State, *24 548 So.2d 501, 507 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1028 , 109 S.Ct. 1159 , 103 L.Ed.2d 218 (1989). ‘Of course, the fact that blacks are ultimately seated on the jury does not necessarily bar a finding of discrimination under Batson [,] see [United States v.] Battle, 836 F.2d [1084] at 1086 [ (8th Cir.1987) ], but the fact may be taken into account in a review of all the circumstances as one that suggests that the government did not seek to rid the jury of persons who shared the defendant’s race.’ United States v. Young-Bey, 893 F.2d 178, 180 (8th Cir.1990).”
579 So.2d at 48 (emphasis added; quoted with approval in Ex parte Thomas, 659 So.2d 3, 7 (Ala.1994)).
With respect to McCray’s argument that he established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, this Court disagrees. Although the State used two peremptory strikes to remove two of the three African-Americans remaining on the veni-re after excusáis and challenges for cause, this fact does not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. See Powell v. State, 796 So.2d 404, 431 (Ala.Crim.App.1999) (holding that the State’s use of two of its peremptory strikes to remove two of three African-Americans did not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination); Powell v. Allen, 602 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir.2010) (affirming this Court’s holding that no Batson violation occurred when the State used of two of its peremptory strikes to remove two of three African-Americans). Further, to the extent that the Houston County District Attorney’s Office has a history of racial discrimination, that history is attenuated. “The opinions reversing the Houston Circuit Court on Bat-son grounds date from 1991, [almost 20] years ago. The most recent of those opinions was published in 1998, [over 12] years ago.” Floyd, — So.3d at — (opinion on return to remand) (Welch, J., dissenting). See McCray v. State, 738 So.2d 911, 914 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (reversing the judgment of the Houston County Circuit Court based on a Batson violation). Accordingly, although the Houston County District Attorney’s Office has a history of using its peremptory strikes in an improper manner, this factor, based on the passage of time, does not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Further, the record does not reflect, and McCray does not argue, that the two African-Americans struck by the State shared only the characteristic of race, that anything in the type or manner of the State’s statements or questions during voir dire examination indicated an intent to discriminate against African-American jurors, that there was a lack of meaningful voir dire directed at African-American jurors, or that African-American jurors and Caucasian jurors were treated differently. With nothing more than an attenuated history of improper peremptory challenges, this Court cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying McCray’s Batson motion.
Finally, McCray’s argument that he established a prima facie case of racial discrimination under McGahee, 560 F.3d 1252 , is unpersuasive. In McGahee , the defendant made a Batson motion at trial, arguing that the State had discriminated against African-American jurors by using 16 of its 22 peremptory strikes to remove African-American prospective jurors. In response, the State offered general explanations for its strikes, but no specific reasons, and generally denied any alleged discrimination. The State, however, offered to provide specific reasons for each of its strikes if the trial court requested. Instead of requiring the State to provide specific reasons, the trial court denied the motion. At the conclusion of the trial, the State proffered specific reasons for all of *25 its 22 strikes, but the trial court made no ruling on whether those reasons were race-neutral. On appeal, this Court upheld the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s Batson motion, holding that the State had provided at least one race-neutral reason for the six peremptory strikes against African-Americans that had been challenged by the defendant on appeal. See McGahee v. State, 554 So.2d 454 (Ala.Crim.App.), aff'd, 554 So.2d 473 (Ala.1989). After his Rule 32, Ala. R.Crim. P., petition was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal, see McGahee v. State, 885 So.2d 191 (Ala.Crim.App.2003), the defendant filed a habeas corpus petition in the federal district court. That petition was denied, and the defendant appealed.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial, holding that this Court had unreasonably applied the holding in Batson to the facts of the case by failing to consider “all relevant circumstances” in determining that no purposeful discrimination had been established, as required by the holding Batson . First, the Court of Appeals noted that although this Court found at least one race-neutral explanation for each of the six strikes that had been challenged on appeal, this Court ignored the significant fact that the prosecutor had also stated “explicitly racial” reasons for two of those strikes. McGahee, 560 F.3d at 1264 . Second, the Court of Appeals further pointed out that this Court had not considered “two additional crucial facts in the Batson analysis,” specifically: (1) the State had removed all of the African-Americans from the venire either through its challenges for cause (the State challenged nine prospective jurors for cause — all nine were African-American — and eight of those challenges were granted by the trial court), or through its peremptory strikes; and (2) the State had indicated that it struck a large number of African-Americans because of “low intelligence” when, in fact, there was no evidence in the record of the intelligence level of any of the jurors. McGahee, 560 F.3d at 1265 . 13
Assuming, without deciding, that the State’s challenges for cause are relevant in determining whether McCray established a prima facie case of racial discrimination, the State’s challenges for cause in this case do not, as McCray argues in his supplemental brief, support an inference of racial discrimination. Compare McGahee, 560 F.3d at 1265 (holding that “the fact that 100% of the African-American potential jurors were ... removed by the prosecution through the challenges for cause and peremptory challenges” is relevant to a Batson determination), with United States v. Elliott, 89 F.3d 1360, 1364-65 (8th Cir.1996) (rejecting an appellant’s argument “that the for-cause strikes in combination with the peremptory strikes resulted in a [Batson violation and holding that] Batson applies only to peremptory strikes ... for which no reasons need be given (absent a Batson challenge) [and thus are inherently] different from challenges for cause, which by definition require a showing of cause”); United States v. Blackman, 66 F.3d 1572 , 1575 n. 3 (11th Cir.1995) (recognizing that “no authority suggests Batson extends to the area of challenges for cause”); United States v. Bergodere, 40 *26 F.3d 512, 515-16 (1st Cir.1994) (holding that a defendant attempting to establish “a prima facie case of race-based discrimination ... must demonstrate that the prosecution’s challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable racial group [and] that the ehallenge[s] [were] peremptory rather than for cause ... ”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The record reflects that the State challenged nine jurors for cause — five of those jurors were African-American. The defense objected to four of those challenges; however, as noted in Parts V and XII of this opinion, those challenges were either properly granted or the reasons for the challenge were race neutral. Just as the race of the jurors challenged for cause may be a “relevant circumstance” to consider in a Batson analysis, so too would be the reasons the party sought to challenge those jurors. Cf. Elliott, 89 F.3d at 1365 (8th Cir.1996) (recognizing that challenges for cause are different because they require a showing of cause). In addition, this Court notes that the State struck the fifth African-American juror challenged for cause because that juror indicated that he could not be fair to the defense, i.e., could not say that McCray was innocent until proven guilty. Thus, this challenge for cause was, in essence, a defense challenge that was simply preempted by the prosecutor, and it, too, was properly granted.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, this Court concludes that, without more, the State’s removal for cause of five African-American prospective jurors and its striking of two of the three remaining African-American prospective jurors, even coupled with the history of the Houston County District Attorney’s Office, is not sufficient under the circumstances in this case to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. See, e.g., Sharifi v. State, 993 So.2d 907 (Ala.Crim.App.2008). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied McCray’s Batson motion.
II.
McCray next contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to elicit or to admit into evidence the following during his cross-examination and recross-examination of McCray: 1) testimony regarding the details of his prior conviction for domestic violence against his ex-wife, Tammy Tidwell; 2) three photographs of the wounds he inflicted on Tid-well during the incident that resulted in his domestic-violence conviction; and 3) testimony regarding an additional uncharged incident involving Tidwell. Specifically, McCray argues that, although his prior conviction could properly be used for impeachment, see Rule 609, Ala. R. Evid., use of a prior conviction for impeachment is limited to the date, name of the crime, and sentence for the conviction, and that the details of the facts underlying that conviction, the photographs of Tidwell’s wounds, and the testimony relating to the uncharged incident were inadmissible as impeachment. McCray further asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to reference the facts underlying his prior conviction during closing argument. Finally, McCray asserts that the trial court’s limiting instruction regarding the prior conviction was untimely and was not sufficient to encompass the details of the prior crime or the photographs that were introduced and, therefore, did not cure the error.
McCray did not object when the prosecutor elicited the details surrounding his prior conviction, did not object when the prosecutor questioned him about the uncharged incident against his ex-wife, did not object to the prosecutor’s closing argument, and did not object to the trial court’s jury instruction. In addition, although *27 McCray objected to the admission into evidence of the photographs of Tidwell’s wounds, he did so on the ground that the photographs were “proof of a collateral matter not relevant to issues in this trial” and that their “prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.” (R. 955.) McCray never specifically argued that the photographs went beyond the bounds of permissible impeachment, as he now argues on appeal. Therefore, this Court reviews McCray’s arguments for plain error only. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.
This Court holds that the admission of testimony and evidence relating to the facts underlying McCray’s domestic-violence conviction for assaulting Tidwell, evidence of an uncharged incident involving Tidwell, and argument relating to those facts were inadmissible and improperly admitted at trial. See Frazier v. State, 632 So.2d 1002, 1009 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (“The presence of a rule that one may cross-examine a witness as to his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude naturally gives rise to the question of how many details of that crime may the impeaching party ask about and, if necessary, prove by his own witnesses. The law of Alabama, in keeping with the general rule in this country, is that one generally cannot go beyond the name of the crime, the time and place of conviction and the punishment. It would be impermissible to ask about or prove further details such as the name of the victim, whether the victim was adult or child and general aggravating circumstances.” (quoting C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence § 145.01(11) (4th ed.1991))); Ex parte Jackson, 33 So.3d 1279, 1286 (Ala.2009) (holding that to admit evidence of prior bad acts pursuant to Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid., the State must demonstrate “that the evidence was reasonably necessary to its case”). However, under the facts of this case, this Court further holds that the erroneous admission of the evidence and the erroneous argument did not rise to the level of plain error.
Under the plain-error standard, the appellant must establish not only that an error occurred, but also that the error aversely affected the outcome of the trial. See Ex parte Walker, 972 So.2d 737, 752 (Ala.2007) (recognizing that the appellant has the burden to establish prejudice relating to an issue being reviewed for plain error); Thomas v. State, 824 So.2d 1, 13 (Ala.Crim.App.1999)(recognizing that to rise to the level of plain error, an error must have affected the outcome of the trial), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Carter, 889 So.2d 528 (Ala.2004). That is, the appellant must establish that an alleged error, “ ‘ “not only seriously affected] [the appellant’s] ‘substantial rights,’ but ... also ha[d] an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury’s deliberations.” ’ ” Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d 933, 938 (Ala.2008) (quoting Ex parte Bryant, 951 So.2d 724, 727 (Ala.2002), quoting in turn Hyde v. State, 778 So.2d 199, 209 (Ala.Crim.App.1998)). Only when an error is “so egregious ... that [it] seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” will reversal be appropriate under the plain-error doctrine. Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d 1063, 1071-72 (Ala.1998) (internal citations and quotations omitted). “The plain error standard applies only where a particularly egregious error occurred at trial and that error has or probably has substantially prejudiced the defendant.” Ex parte Trawick, 698 So.2d at 167 .
In addition, Rule 45, Ala. RApp. 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 *28 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 United States Supreme Court has recognized that most errors do not automatically render a trial unfair and, thus, can be harmless.” Whitehead v. State, 777 So.2d 781, 847 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 777 So.2d 854 (Ala.2000).
“After finding error, an appellate court may still affirm a conviction or sentence on the ground that the error was harmless, if indeed it was. Chapman [v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)]; Sattari v. State, 577 So.2d 535 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), cert. denied, 577 So.2d 540 (Ala.1991); [Ala.] R.App. P. 45. Moreover, the harmless error rule applies in capital cases. Ex parte Whisenhant, 482 So.2d 1241 (Ala.1983); Henderson v. State, 583 So.2d 276 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), aff'd, 583 So.2d 305 (Ala.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 908 , 112 S.Ct. 1268 , 117 L.Ed.2d 496 (1992); Musgrove v. State, 519 So.2d 565 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 519 So.2d 586 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1036 , 108 S.Ct. 2024 , 100 L.Ed.2d 611 (1988). 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 and/or sentence. In order for a nonconstitutional error to be deemed harmless, the appellate court must determine with ‘fair assurance ... that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993); Vines v. United States, 28 F.3d 1123, 1130 (11th Cir.1994)_ In order for the error to be deemed harmless under Ala. R.App. P. 45, the state must establish that the error did not or probably did not injuriously affect the appellant’s substantial rights.... 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.1995), aff'd, 718 So.2d 1166 (Ala.1998).
After thoroughly reviewing the record, this Court concludes that, under the circumstances in this case, the improper evidence and argument did not injuriously affect McCray’s substantial rights, did not substantially prejudice McCray, and did not have an unfair prejudicial impact on the jury’s deliberations. Initially, this Court notes that the jury was restricted to considering the evidence relating to McCray’s prior conviction for domestic violence for impeachment purposes only. Specifically, at the conclusion of its oral charge, just before it instructed the jury regarding selecting a foreperson, the trial court instructed the jury as follows:
“In a criminal case, the State may attempt to impeach the credibility of a defendant who has testified by providing his former conviction of a crime or crimes involving moral turpitude. Such may be considered by a jury in determining whether to believe the testimony of a defendant, but not for the purpose of determining that the defendant is guilty of the crime for which he is presently charged just because he has committed a previous crime.
*29 “Saying that more clearly, ladies and gentlemen, there has been introduction into evidence or reference to — while Mr. McCray was on the stand of certain convictions. You may not consider those convictions as evidence of guilt in this case, but may consider them for the purpose of his credibility by introducing such evidence the State is attacking or impeaching the credibility of such a witness. And that is the purpose for that.”
(R. 1035.)
Despite McCray’s argument that the instruction was not timely and was not sufficient to include the specific details of his prior conviction, this Court finds that the timing of the instruction was actually beneficial to McCray and that the content of the instruction was sufficient to include the details of his prior conviction and to prevent the jury from using his acts against his ex-wife or the details of that conviction to infer guilt. As noted above, the trial court’s limiting instruction came at the conclusion of its oral charge. Thus, one of the last things the jurors heard, and what presumably would have been resonating in their minds when they were released from the jury box to begin deliberations, was that they could not use the prior conviction as evidence of McCray’s guilt. In addition, as quoted above, the trial court instructed the jury that McCray’s prior convictions 14 could not be used as evidence of his guilt, but could be used only in assessing his credibility as a witness. Although the trial court used the term “conviction” in its instruction, it also used the phrase “evidence and reference to.” Taken as a whole, a reasonable person would have understood that the trial court’s instruction applied not only to McCray’s testimony that he had been convicted of domestic violence, but also to his testimony regarding the facts underlying that conviction; to the uncharged act against his ex-wife, which appears to have been in retaliation for reporting the first act to police; and to the photographs of the wounds he had inflicted on his ex-wife. See, e.g., First Bank of Childersburg v. Florey, 676 So.2d 324, 331 (Ala.Civ.App.1996) (limiting instruction that prior conviction could not be used as substantive evidence cured error in admission of details regarding conviction); See Peralta v. State, 897 So.2d 1161, 1204 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (“ ‘Jurors are presumed to follow the trial court’s instructions.’ ” (quoting Bryant v. State, 727 So.2d 870, 874-75 (Ala.Crim.App.1998))); Burgess v. State, 827 So.2d 134, 162 (Ala.Crim.App.1998) (“Jurors are presumed to follow the court’s instructions.”).
With the evidence of the prior acts restricted to impeachment, the prosecutor’s improper impeachment of McCray did not affect the outcome of the trial. Although the improperly admitted evidence was used to attack McCray’s credibility, the record shows that his credibility had already been severely damaged before he ever took the stand on his own behalf. In his videotaped statement to police, McCray repeatedly lied about being at Baehelder’s mobile home the night of the murder, about the cut he had on his hand, and about the scratches on his neck. Each time McCray was confronted by the officers during the interview with evidence that he had lied, he changed his story. This happened repeatedly throughout the interview. When McCray testified on his own behalf, he provided yet another story about what had happened, further calling his credibility into question. McCray’s credibility was further attacked by the *30 prosecutor’s proper use of additional prior convictions, and by McCray’s own inconsistencies in his trial testimony. Accordingly, McCray’s credibility was thoroughly undermined without any consideration of the improper impeachment evidence. Finally, although the prosecutor erroneously commented on the improperly admitted evidence during his closing arguments and impermissibly suggested that McCray had a violent character, this Court must consider that McCray was properly questioned about his prior conviction for domestic violence and that it is only the details of that conviction that were improperly admitted. The fact of the conviction alone, especially in light of the relationship between McCray and Bachelder, tended to indicate some propensity on the part of McCray toward violence in the domestic setting and would have, by itself, impaired his credibility. See, e.g., Arebalo v. State, 143 S.W.3d 402, 410 (Tex.Ct.App.2004) (holding harmless erroneous admission of details surrounding defendant’s prior convictions in light of numerous factors, including that the fact of a prior aggravated-assault conviction, alone, “indicated some propensity towards violence and could have weighed against his credibility”). Because the jury was restricted to considering the evidence of McCray’s prior act for impeachment purposes only and because McCray’s credibility had already been thoroughly undermined, if not destroyed, any error in allowing the improper impeachment evidence to be admitted did not rise to the level of plain error. Cf. Ex parte Brown, 11 So.3d at 938-40 (holding that the erroneous admission of evidence did not rise to the level of plain error because the State presented overwhelming evidence of guilt and the inference drawn from the improper evidence was established by other legal evidence).
Finally, the evidence in this case was largely undisputed and overwhelmingly established McCray’s guilt. The State presented an abundance of physical evidence linking McCray to the murder, and McCray admitted during his testimony that he had caused Bachelder’s death. McCray, however, claimed that he had been given permission to enter the mobile home and, thus, had not committed burglary. McCray further claimed that he had been provoked and that Bachelder’s death resulted from heat of passion. The State, on the other hand, presented ironclad evidence refuting McCray’s claims. For instance, the State presented evidence establishing that after McCray had moved out of the mobile home, Bachelder replaced the door knobs, containing the door locks, on both doors of the mobile home and McCray had to use a screwdriver to break in to the trailer, raising the inference that McCray did not have permission to enter Bachelder’s mobile home. The State’s evidence also established that Bachelder was stabbed multiple times, that a dog leash was looped around her neck and used to drag her throughout the mobile home, and that a plastic bag was placed over her head to prevent her from breathing, establishing that any license McCray may have had to be in the trailer would have been revoked, and after it was revoked, he remained there unlawfully. Brown, 11 So.3d at 914 (holding that evidence of a struggle indicates that any license the defendant had had to be in the home was revoked and satisfies the remained-unlawfully element of burglary). Additionally, McCray admitted on cross-examination that he wanted Bachelder to die so that she would not be able to identify him to the police, rebutting his own claim that he killed Bachelder out of heat of passion. See Palmore v. State, 253 Ala. 183 , 43 So.2d 399, 401 (1949) (explaining that a person is guilty of murder, as opposed to manslaughter, if that *31 person “is not moved [to kill] by the heat of passion, but by prior malice, hatred, a desire to avenge the wrong done him, or by any other motive ...” (quoting McNeill v. State, 102 Ala. 121 , 15 So. 352 , 354 (1894))).
Because “the record shows that the evidence of McCray’s guilt is virtually ironclad,” the erroneous admission of evidence and argument relating to his prior acts against his ex-wife “did not affect the outcome of the trial or otherwise prejudice his right to a fair trial.” Chavers v. State, 714 So.2d 341, 344 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). See Ex parte Greathouse, 624 So.2d 208, 211 (Ala.1993) (holding that because the evidence of guilt was “virtually ironclad,” an eiToneous comment on the defendant’s failure to testify “did not affect the outcome of the trial or otherwise prejudice [the defendant’s] right to a fair trial”); Ex parte Price, 725 So.2d at 1072 (“Because the State produced overwhelming evidence, beyond Sheriff Turner’s testimony concerning [Price’s] statement, connecting Price to the crimes, we conclude that the error in allowing Sheriff Turner to testify regarding the statement did not rise to the level of plain error.”); Ex parte T.D.T., 745 So.2d 899, 906 (Ala.1999) (the erroneous admission of an out-of-court statement “was harmless error because, even without it, the record contained] overwhelming evidence of [the defendant’s] guilt”). Therefore, McCray has failed to establish that these errors rise to the level of plain error.
For foregoing reasons, this Court concludes that the errors complained of here do not rise to the level of plain error, but were, at most, harmless. Therefore, McCray is entitled to no relief on these claims.
III.
McCray also contends that the trial court erred in allowing what he claims was inadmissible testimony from Bachelder’s mother, Rolande Dean. He argues that the prosecutor improperly questioned Dean in a leading manner to elicit from her evidence indicating that Bachelder was afraid of McCray when Bachelder’s state of mind was not at issue. McCray also argues that the prosecutor improperly elicited hearsay testimony from Dean that she heard Bachelder tell McCray to leave the mobile home. McCray did not object to any of Dean’s testimony at trial; therefore, this claim is reviewed for plain error only. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.
During Dean’s testimony, the following occurred, in pertinent part:
“[Prosecutor]: Now, let’s go back to the times before that day when you had seen [Bachelder] with Heath McCray, in other words, at the trailer and in the community — back in, I’d say, July or June, going backwards, did you see how they interacted when they were together around those times?
“[Dean]: Yes.
“[Prosecutor]: Okay. Now, let’s go to that Thursday night before the Wednesday when you found her. When you saw her with Heath McCray, what you observed, was the observation between her and Heath McCray different from what you had seen in the past?
“[Dean]: Yes.
“[Prosecutor]: Did [Bachelder] exhibit any type of — what you saw yourself— fear towards anyone in that trailer?
“[Dean]: Yes.
“[Prosecutor]: Who was it?
“[Dean]: Heath McCray.
“[Prosecutor]: Now, would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when you got over there — not what [Ba-chelder] said to you — but were there any discussions about whether Heath *32 McCray was going to continue to live in that trailer then?
“[Dean]: Yes.
“[Prosecutor]: Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, did you hear [Bachelder] say anything to Heath McCray personally in the trailer that night?
“[Dean]: Yes.
“[Prosecutor]: What did she say to him?
“[Dean]: He had to leave.
“[Prosecutor]: Would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, when Heath McCray was told to leave, did he take anything with him or have anything at that time?
“[Dean]: Yes.
“[Prosecutor]: Tell the jury what it was.
“[Dean]: A bag of clothes.
“[Prosecutor]: Now, once again, asking you about [Bachelder] when you observed her and saw her, would you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, was her demeanor and appearance different that night, that Thursday, than in the past when she had been around him?
“[Dean]: Yes.
“[Prosecutor]: Big difference? Little difference? What was it?
“[Dean]: Big difference.”
(R. 266-68.) Later during Dean’s testimony, the following occurred:
“[Prosecutor]: Now, not what she said, but did she indicate — what she showed you — what you watched yourself, did you see any type of fear?
“[Dean]: Yes.”
(R. 283.) In addition, as noted above, Dean testified that after McCray left the mobile home, Bachelder went and purchased new door knobs which she placed on both the front and back doors of the mobile home that night.
To the extent McCray argues that Ba-chelder’s fear of him was irrelevant, this issue is without merit. In Ex parte Martin, 931 So.2d 759 (Ala.2004), the Alabama Supreme Court addressed the admissibility of a murder victim’s state of mind as follows:
“Evidence of the victim’s state of mind or, as here, facts from which one might infer a state of mind, can be relevant where a theory put forth by the defense opens the door to such evidence, thereby making the victim’s state of mind relevant. While other jurisdictions are not entirely consistent, 4 many courts have allowed evidence of a victim’s state of mind only in certain situations. See United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758, 767 (D.C.Cir.1973) (recognizing three categories of cases in which a homicide victim’s fear is relevant: 1) where the defendant claims self-defense; 2) where the defendant claims the victim committed suicide; and 3) where the defendant admits some involvement in the crime, but claims that the death was the result of an accident); State v. Revelle, 957 S.W.2d 428, 432 (Mo.Ct.App.1997) (‘Where an accused claims self-defense, the deceased’s state of mind is relevant to the issue of which participant in the killing was the aggressor. Where a defendant concedes his or her presence and involvement in a victim’s death but claims an accident or suicide caused the death, the deceased’s statements as to fear of guns or similar state of mind are relevant to rebut these defenses.’ (citations omitted)); Bray v. Commonwealth, 68 S.W.3d 375, 381-82 (Ky.2002) (‘[W]here a defendant did not claim self-defense, an accidental death, or suicide, such statements [of the victim’s fear of the defendant] usually have “little relevancy except toward providing a strong *33 inference of appellant’s intent, actions or culpability.” ’ (quoting Partin v. Commonwealth, 918 S.W.2d 219, 222 (Ky.1996))); People v. Armendariz, 37 Cal.3d 573, 586 , 693 P.2d 243, 251 , 209 Cal.Rptr. 664, 672 (1984) (‘This court has repeatedly held that a victim’s out-of-court statements of fear of an accused are admissible ... only when the victim’s conduct in conformity with that fear is in dispute. Absent such dispute, the statements are irrelevant.’); Hatcher v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1155, 1161 (Ind. 2000) (“We have noted three situations where [a statement indicating a homicide victim’s fear] is admissible: (1) to show the intent of the victim to act in a particular way, (2) when the defendant puts the victim’s state of mind in issue, and (3) sometimes to explain physical injuries suffered by the victim.... We decline the State’s invitation to extend this list to include the admissibility of a victim’s state of mind to show the nature of the relationship between the victim and the defendant.’ (emphasis added [in Ex parte Martin ])).
“It is unnecessary for us to decide whether a statement offered not for the truth of the matters asserted, but to suggest a state of mind indicative of fear of a spouse and therefore indicative of a bad marriage, is admissible as nonhear-say under Rule 801(c) or as an exception to the hearsay rule under Rule 803(c). It is unnecessary because Martin suggested during his opening statement that the victim in this case might have committed suicide. Such a theory of defense puts in issue the victim’s state of mind. Statements probative of the victim’s fear of dying or of her will to live are inconsistent with any suicidal tendencies on her part and are therefore relevant. Carey testified that the victim told her that if she did not hear from the victim in ‘three or four days,’ to ‘call [the victim’s] mama and daddy and tell them he did it.’ Such a state of mind, which was consistent with the possibility of her death being occasioned solely by a third party and not by her own hand, was relevant to rebuttal of the defense’s suggestion that the victim may have been suicidal. Therefore, the statement, from which a fact-finder could infer the victim’s state of mind, was relevant to an issue in the case, and the statement was admissible under Rule 401, Ala. R. Evid. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence over Martin’s hearsay objection.
931 So.2d at 765-67 (some footnotes omitted).
Here, as in Ex parte Martin, Ba-chelder’s state of mind was placed at issue by the defense’s theory of the case. Although the main defense theory of the case was, as noted above, heat of passion, the defense also challenged the burglary element of the capital-murder charge by suggesting that McCray’s entry into the mobile home was normal (because he had previously used a screwdriver to enter the mobile home when he was living there) and that he had a right to be in the mobile home because McCray and Bachelder’s relationship had not ended and she had agreed to meet him that day at the mobile home. Indeed, during opening state *34 ments, defense counsel specifically stated that he expected that the evidence would fail to establish an unlawful entry. Ba-chelder’s fear of McCray just days before her murder rebuts the defense’s suggestion that McCray and Bachelder’s relationship had not ended and tends to indicate that Bachelder would not have invited him to meet her alone in her trailer. Therefore, evidence relating to Bachelder’s state of mind was clearly relevant and admissible under Rule 401, Ala. R. Evid.
Further, to the extent that McCray argues that the trial court erroneously allowed the prosecutor to elicit testimony from Dean regarding Bachelder’s state of mind through leading questions, this argument is likewise without merit. Because evidence of Bachelder’s state of mind was admissible, the fact that Dean’s testimony regarding Bachelder’s fear of McCray was elicited using some arguably leading questions does not constitute error. Rule 611(c), Ala. R. Evid., provides:
“Leading questions should not be used on the direct examination of a witness, except when justice requires that they be allowed. Leading questions are permitted on cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an adverse party, or a witness identified with an adverse party, interrogation may be by leading questions.”
However, “Alabama has never enforced an across-the-board ban on leading questions by a prosecutor during direct examination.” Calhoun v. State, 932 So.2d 923, 963 (Ala.Crim.App.2005). “ ‘ “Whether to allow or disallow leading questions is discretionary with the trial court and except for a flagrant violation will there be reversible error.” ’ ” Johnson v. State, [Ms. CR-99-1349, October 2, 2009] — So.3d —, — (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (opinion on remand from the Alabama Supreme Court) (quoting Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, December 22, 2000] — So.3d —, — (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd in part, rev’d on other grounds, [Ms. 1010267, March 14, 2003] — So.3d — (Ala.2003), quoting in turn Ruffin v. State, 582 So.2d 1159, 1162 (Ala.Crim.App.1991)). In George v. State, 717 So.2d 827 (Ala.Crim.App.), rev’d on other grounds, 717 So.2d 844 (Ala.1996), this Court addressed a similar issue, stating:
“None of the questions led to the admission of illegal evidence and none prejudiced the appellant. The questions were merely attempts to speed up the direct examination. The trial court is vested with wide discretion in this area ‘because it has been said that there is no form of question which may not be leading and that the trial court should look beyond the form to the substance and effect of the inquiry in the particular circumstances of the case.’ C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 121.05(3) (4th ed.1991). We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”
717 So.2d at 838. None of the prosecutor’s leading questions to Dean elicited any illegal evidence and therefore did not prejudice McCray.
Finally, to the extent McCray argues that Dean’s testimony that she heard Bachelder tell McCray to leave the mobile home was inadmissible hearsay, this Court disagrees. “ ‘Hearsay’ is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Rule 801(c), Ala. R. Evid. Dean’s testimony was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted; rather, it was offered to further establish Bachelder’s state of mind, i.e., that she feared McCray and wanted him to stay away. Therefore, this testimony, too, was properly admitted.
*35 For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any error, much less plain error, in the admission of Dean’s testimony.
IV.
McCray next contends that there were instances of prosecutorial misconduct throughout his trial. Regarding prosecu-torial-misconduct claims, this Court has explained:
“ ‘The prosecutor’s duty in a criminal prosecution is to seek justice, and although the prosecutor should prosecute with vigor, he or she should not use improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction.’ Smith v. State, [Ms. CR-97-1258, December 22, 2000] — So.3d —, — (Ala.Crim.App. 2000), aff'd in pertinent part, rev’d on other grounds, [Ms. 1010267, March 14, 2003] — So.3d — (Ala.2003). ‘In reviewing allegedly improper prosecuto-rial comments, conduct, and questioning of witnesses, the task of this Court is to consider their impact in the context of the particular trial, and not to view the allegedly improper acts in the abstract.’ Bankhead v. State, 585 So.2d 97, 106 (Ala.Crim.App.1989), remanded on other grounds, 585 So.2d 112 (Ala.1991), aff'd on return to remand, 625 So.2d 1141 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), rev’d on other grounds, 625 So.2d 1146 (Ala.1993). ‘ “Prosecutorial misconduct is a basis for reversing an appellant’s conviction only if, in the context of the entire trial and in light of any curative instruction, the misconduct may have prejudiced the substantial rights of the accused.” ’ Carroll v. State, 599 So.2d 1253, 1268 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 627 So.2d 874 (Ala.1993), quoting United States v. Reed, 887 F.2d 1398, 1402 (11th Cir.1989). The relevant question is whether the prosecutor’s conduct ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974).”
Minor v. State, 914 So.2d 372, 415 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). In addition:
“ ‘In judging a prosecutor’s closing argument, the standard is whether the argument “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” ’ Bankhead [v. State ], 585 So.2d [97,] 107 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1989),] quoting Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464, 2471 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)). ‘A prosecutor’s statement must be viewed in the context of all of the evidence presented and in the context of the complete closing arguments to the jury.’ Roberts v. State, 735 So.2d 1244, 1253 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd, 735 So.2d 1270 (Ala.), cert. denied, 5[2] 8 U.S. 939 , 120 S.Ct. 346 , 145 L.Ed.2d 271 (1999). Moreover, ‘statements of counsel in argument to the jury must be viewed as delivered in the heat of debate; such statements are usually valued by the jury at their true worth and are not expected to become factors in the formation of the verdict.’ Bankhead, 585 So.2d at 106. ‘Questions of the propriety of argument of counsel are largely within the trial court’s discretion, McCullough v. State, 357 So.2d 397, 399 (Ala.Crim.App.1978), and that court is given broad discretion in determining what is permissible argument.’ Bankhead, 585 So.2d at 105. We will not reverse the judgment of the trial court unless there has been an abuse of that discretion. Id.”
Ferguson v. State, 814 So.2d 925, 945-46 (Ala.Crim.App.2000), aff'd, 814 So.2d 970 (Ala.2001). Moreover, “ ‘[t]his court has concluded that the failure to object to im *36 proper prosecutorial arguments ... should be weighed as part of our evaluation of the claim on the merits because of its suggestion that the defense did not consider the comments in question to be particularly harmful.’ ” Kuenzel v. State, 577 So.2d 474, 489 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), aff'd, 577 So.2d 531 (Ala.1991) (quoting Johnson v. Wainwright, 778 F.2d 623 , 629 n. 6 (11th Cir.1985)).
With these principles in mind, this Court addresses each of McCray’s arguments in turn.
A.
First, McCray argues that the prosecutor improperly presented evidence and argument at the guilt phase of his trial calculated solely to inflame the jury. Specifically, he argues that: (1) the prosecutor presented improper victim-impact evidence and argument; (2) the prosecutor engaged in an improper demonstration; and (3) the prosecutor improperly called him names during closing arguments.
Victim-Impact Evidence
Initially, McCray contends that during the guilt phase of the trial, the prosecutor improperly presented evidence and argument regarding Bachelder’s two children, improperly presented evidence and argument regarding the pain and blood loss Bachelder endured during the attack, and improperly argued the value of Bachelder’s life. McCray objected during trial to the prosecutor presenting evidence regarding Bachelder’s pain and suffering during the attack. However, he did not object to the evidence and argument regarding Ba-chelder’s two children or to the argument regarding the value of Bachelder’s life; 15 therefore, those claims will be reviewed for plain error only. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.
During opening statements, the prosecutor stated that “[Bachelder] had two children” (R. 221); that Bachelder and McCray had lived together “with his children and her children” (R. 223) for a period of time before her murder; and that the day of her murder, Bachelder had taken one of her sons to school. 16 During Bachelder’s mother’s testimony, the prosecutor introduced into evidence a photograph of Bachelder with her two children and elicited testimony regarding the names and ages of those children. During closing arguments, the prosecutor stated:
“I asked [McCray], when he testified, what was it like to walk in [Bachelder’s] blood — that you had put a dog chain on her neck. You had put a plastic bag to cut off her air. You had wound it tight. You had stabbed her repeatedly, over and over again on the neck, on both sides. You have cut a carotid artery. You have got cuts and lacerations on her hand. You stabbed her in the breast more than four inches. You stabbed her in the vagina — with the laceration in the vagina while she was lying on that trail *37 er in that floor — in that blood-soaked trailer in the home that she had raised her children in — after that man sitting right over there, Heath Lavon McCray, had pulled down her pants, had taken her underwear and cut her panties.”
(R. 980.) The prosecutor later stated:
“He has got her down on the floor. What is he saying to her? Can you imagine the effects of being stabbed, how she was gurgling, gasping to breathe in her own diaphragm, choking on her own blood as it’s flowing out?
“And she’s looking at the picture— [defense counsel] wants to say there’s his football picture. There’s pictures also in that house of who? Who was important to her? Her children. Her children.”
(R. 994.)
It is well settled that victim-impact statements “ ‘are admissible during the guilt phase of a criminal trial only if the statements are relevant to a material issue of the guilt phase. Testimony that has no probative value on any material question of fact or inquiry is inadmissible.’ ” Ex parte Crymes, 630 So.2d 125, 126 (Ala.1993) (emphasis in original). However, the admission of victim-impact evidence and argument regarding that evidence does not necessarily require reversal of a conviction, but may be harmless under Rule 45, Ala. R.App. P. As the Alabama Supreme Court explained in addressing a similar issue in Ex parte Rieber, 663 So.2d 999 (Ala.1995):
“We agree with Rieber that Mr. Craig’s testimony concerning Ms. Craig’s children, their ages, and the status of their custody after the murder was not relevant with respect to the question of his guilt or innocence and, therefore, that it was inadmissible in the guilt phase of the trial. The only issue before the jury during the guilt phase of the trial was whether Rieber had robbed and killed Ms. Craig. However, in Ex parte Crymes, 630 So.2d 125 (Ala.1993), a plurality of this Court held in a capital murder case in which the defendant was sentenced to life-imprisonment without parole that a judgment of conviction can be upheld if the record conclusively shows that the admission of the victim impact evidence during the guilt phase of the trial did not affect the outcome of the trial or otherwise prejudice a substantial right of the defendant. See, also, Giles v. State, 632 So.2d 568 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd, 632 So.2d 577 (Ala.1993), cert. denied, [512] U.S. [1213], 114 S.Ct. 2694 , 129 L.Ed.2d 825 (1994); Ex parte Parker, 610 So.2d 1181 (Ala.1992), cert. denied, [509] U.S. [929], 113 S.Ct. 3053 , 125 L.Ed.2d 737 (1993); Lawhorn v. State, [ 581 So.2d 1159 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), affd, 581 So.2d 1179 (Ala.1991) ]; Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329 (Ala.Crim.App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050 , 109 S.Ct. 883 , 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989); and Ex parte Whisenhant, [ 555 So.2d 235 (Ala.1989) ], applying a harmless error analysis in death penalty cases. Our review of the record indicates that Rieber’s attorneys did not object to Mr. Craig’s brief references to Ms. Craig’s children or ask him any questions on cross-examination. The trial court clearly instructed the jury that it had to determine, based on all of the evidence, whether Rieber had robbed and killed Ms. Craig. The jury was instructed that it could not find Rieber guilty unless the prosecutor had established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was also instructed not to let sympathy or prejudice affect its verdict. We caution prosecutors that the introduction of victim impact evidence during the guilt phase of a capital *38 murder trial can result in reversible error if the record indicates that it probably distracted the jury and kept it from performing its duty of determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant based on the admissible evidence and the applicable law. However, after examining the record in its entirety, we conclude that the aforementioned portions of Mr. Craig’s testimony, although they should not have been permitted, did not operate to deny Rieber a fair trial. It is presumed that jurors do not leave their common sense at the courthouse door. It would elevate form over substance for us to hold, based on the record before us, that Rieber did not receive a fair trial simply because the jurors were told what they probably had already suspected — that Ms. Craig was not a ‘human island,’ but a unique individual whose murder had inevitably had a profound impact on her children, spouse, parents, friends, or dependents (paraphrasing a portion of Justice Souter’s opinion concurring in the judgment in Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 838 , 111 S.Ct. 2597, 2615 , 115 L.Ed.2d 720 (1991)).”
663 So.2d at 1005-06 .
Hei'e, as in Ex parte Rieber, the testimony and argument regarding Ba-chelder’s children were irrelevant to any issue in the case and inadmissible. However, after reviewing the record as a whole, this Court finds no indication that the testimony or argument affected the outcome of the trial or that it otherwise prejudiced McCray’s substantial rights. Therefore, the error in allowing this testimony and argument was harmless.
Next, during Dr. Boudreau’s testimony, the prosecutor elicited evidence regarding each wound suffered by Bachelder, the amount of blood loss that would likely have been associated with that wound, and whether the specific wound would have caused pain to Bachelder. During closing arguments, the prosecutor referred to the pain Bachelder must have suffered during the attack and described McCray’s actions as slaughtering, butchering, and torturing. As noted above, the prosecutor also asked the jury: “Can you imagine the effects of being stabbed, how she was gurgling, gasping to breathe in her own diaphragm, choking on her own blood as it’s flowing out?” (R. 994.) The prosecutor later asked the jury: “What’s it like to feel that knife — six, seven, eight inches, five inches of that steel going into your flesh, going through your organ, in other words, in your breast, going through your muscles being twisted, being stabbed and you are going to be moving around?” (R. 1000.) During rebuttal closing arguments, the prosecutor asked similar questions of the jury.
McCray argues that this evidence and argument were irrelevant, prejudicial, and inadmissible at the guilt phase of his trial because they were relevant only to the penalty-phase issue of whether the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel as compared to other capital offenses. However, McCray has cited no authority, and this Court has not found any, that prohibits the introduction of evidence and argument to the jury regarding the circumstances surrounding a murder. The pain and suffering of the victim is a circumstance surrounding the murder — a circumstance that is relevant and admissible during the guilt phase of a capital trial. See, e.g., Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788, 812 (Ala.Crim.App.2000) (no error in trial court questioning witness regarding the number of wounds on the murder victim’s body during guilt phase of capital-murder trial despite appellant’s argument that the number of wounds was relevant only to the *39 penalty-phase issue of whether the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel).
In addition, as part of his defense, McCray asserted that he did not commit a burglary because he had Bachelder’s permission to enter her mobile home and did not enter or remain unlawfully in her dwelling, as required to establish the burglary that elevated the murder to a capital offense. However, as the Alabama Supreme Court explained in Davis v. State, 787 So.2d 480 (Ala.1999):
“The common law defined the crime of burglary far more narrowly than its statutory successor does. Common-law burglary required a breaking and entering of the dwelling of another in the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony. Wayne R. LaFave and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 8.13 (1986). When Alabama adopted its current burglary statute, as part of the Alabama Criminal Code, by Act No. 607, Reg. Session, Ala. Acts 1977, the legislature expanded the crime of burglary beyond its common-law boundaries, by eliminating most of the common-law requirements. The requirement of a ‘breaking’ was one requirement deleted. Perry v. State, 407 So.2d 183 (Ala.Crim.App.1981). The State is no longer required to prove that the defendant broke and entered the premises. Instead, the strictures of that element have been replaced with the general requirement of a trespass on premises through an unlawful entry or an unlawful remaining.
[[Image here]]
“While the State was not required to prove ‘breaking and entering,’ it was required to prove that Davis entered or remained ‘unlawfully’ in Harrington’s home with the intent to commit a crime. The ‘unlawful remaining’ prong of Alabama’s burglary statute ‘cover[s] cases where a person enters with license or privilege but remains after termination of such license or privilege.’ Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-7-1 Commentary.
[[Image here]]
“Evidence of a straggle that gives rise to circumstantial evidence of revocation of a license or privilege can be used, to show an unlawful remaining, a separate prong of the offense of burglary upon which a conviction can be based....
“We reiterate that the evidence of a commission of a crime, standing alone, is inadequate to support the finding of an unlawful remaining, but evidence of a struggle can supply the necessary evidence of an unlawful remaining. In homicide cases, the mere fact of the victim’s death cannot be equated with a struggle. For example, evidence of a privileged entry followed by death from an injury inflicted by surprise or stealth and causing instantaneous death would not constitute circumstantial evidence of an unlawful remaining. Likewise, a privileged entry followed by death from an injury inflicted by a delayed mechanism, such as poison, would be equally deficient.
“The evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Davis killed Harrington during a burglary. The evidence of a struggle giving rise to the inference of an unlawful remaining is supplied by Davis’s choice to kill by a less-than-instantaneous technique of strangulation and by his use of three nonfatal stab wounds to the victim’s lower back. Based on the circumstances suggested by the evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that Davis, from the point at which he began committing his criminal acts, ‘remain[ed] unlawfully’ in Harrington’s home with the intent to commit a crime.”
*40 737 So.2d at 482-84 (emphasis added). See also Brown, 11 So.3d 866, 914 (Ala.Crim.App.2007) (same). It was necessary for the State to rebut McCray’s assertion that he did not enter or remain unlawfully in Bachelder’s mobile home. The victim’s wounds, the amount of blood lost, and her pain were direct evidence of a lengthy struggle that circumstantially established that, even if McCray had permission to enter the mobile home, his license or privilege to be in the mobile home was revoked when he brutally attacked Bachelder and that after the revocation, he unlawfully remained in the mobile home. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the admission of this testimony or in the prosecutor’s argument in this regard.
Finally, at the conclusion of his closing arguments, the prosecutor stated:
“I can tell you what she did. She fought and she kicked him, she tried to do all she could. She stuck her hands up and took that hand and almost split it. She had no chance.
“And they want to say heat of passion, he lost all control. He didn’t lose no control. He planned it out. He executed it. He did it. And the only time Heath McCray ever decided to tell the truth in this case is in front of you, 12 good people, because he is facing what? Capital murder conviction. They want you to find him guilty of manslaughter. Find him not guilty if you think that’s all her life was worth, that that’s all her life was worth. Woman slaughterer.”
(R. 1001; emphasis indicates portion complained of by McCray.) Read in context, this Court finds this comment was nothing more than a proper plea for justice. See, e.g., Minor, 914 So.2d at 421 (urging jury not to “let him get away with” murder “for the sake” of the victim’s memory was nothing more than an appeal for justice). “ ‘There is no impropriety in a prosecutor’s appeal to the jury for justice and to properly perform its duty.’ ” Freeman v. State, 776 So.2d 160, 186 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), aff'd, 776 So.2d 203 (Ala.2000) (quoting Price v. State, 725 So.2d 1003, 1033 (Ala.Crim.App.1997), aff'd 725 So.2d 1063 (Ala.1998)). However, even assuming that this comment was improper, 17 this Court has thoroughly reviewed the record and concludes that this single comment did not so infect the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. Therefore, this Court finds no error, much less plain error, in this comment by the prosecutor.
Demonstration
McCray also contends that the prosecutor engaged in an improper demonstration while cross-examining him by requesting that McCray hold the murder weapon (the butcher knife) and the dog leash that had been found around Bachelder’s neck and show the jury how he got the dog leash around her neck while holding the knife. McCray argues that this demonstration was highly prejudicial because the jury had already seen the photographs of the crime scene and the wounds to Bachelder’s body and seeing him in the courtroom holding the butcher knife and the dog leash “only intensified the already inflamed passions and prejudices of the jury.” (McCray’s brief, at 50-51.) McCray did not object to this allegedly improper demonstration; therefore, this Court reviews this claim under the plain-error standard. See Rule 45A, Ala. R.App. P.
*41 The record reflects the following during cross-examination of McCray:
“[Prosecutor]: What color was the dog leash you put on [Bachelder’s] neck?
“[McCray]: I want to say it was black.
“[Prosecutor]: Is this the dog leash?
“[McCray]: No, sir.
“[Prosecutor]: This is the dog leash. Right?
“[McCray]: Uh-huh.
“[Prosecutor]: This is State’s Exhibit No. 106. Can you hold it?
“[McCray]: Uh-huh.
“[Prosecutor]: Kind of open it up and take it and kind of show me how you got that dog leash around the woman that you loved to F-ing death[ 18 ] — how you got it around her neck.
“[McCray]: Well, we was tussling at the time. And I don’t remember how I did it, but somehow I got it through the loop.
“[Prosecutor]: Let me ask you this— somehow you did it. What part of your body told your hands how to get that around her neck? It’s your brain. Right?
“[McCray]: I assume so.
“[Prosecutor]: Take State’s 16 [the butcher knife] and hold it in your hand, please, sir. Pick it up and hold it. Now, pick up the dog chain — together. How did you get the dog chain on her while you had the knife and she was running, trying to get away? Show me with your hands.
“[McCray]: I didn’t have the knife.
“[Prosecutor]: Okay. Who had the knife?
“[McCray]: It was laying on the couch.
“[Prosecutor]: Is that after you had stabbed her?
“[McCray]: I can’t recall.”
(R. 924-26.)
Regarding experiment or demonstrations in court, this Court, has held:
“The rule on the admissibility of experiments in open court is stated in Shows v. Brunson, 229 Ala. 682, 685 , 159 So. 248, 251 (1935).
“ ‘Experiments or tests of this character in open court are usually within the discretion of the trial judge, guided by a sound judgment as to whether the result will be sufficiently relevant and material to warrant such procedure. 22 C.J. p. 790, s 899.
“‘Similarity of conditions, and a test that will go to the substantial question in hand, should appear.’
“See also Hawkins v. State, 53 Ala.App. 89, 93 , 297 So.2d 813 (1974). Both the scope and extent of the experiment, if allowed, rest within the sound discretion of the trial judge. The exercise of that discretion will not be reversed on appeal unless it has been clearly and grossly abused. Campbell v. State, 55 Ala. 80 (1876); C. Gamble, McElroy’s Alabama Evidence, § 81.02(1) (3rd ed.1977).
“While the conditions of the experiment and of the occurrence in issue should be substantially similar, they need not be identical. McElroy’s 81.01(4).
“ ‘A reasonable or substantial similarity suffices and only where the conditions are dissimilar in an essential particular should the evidence of an experiment be rejected. If we have a case where the conditions are not *42 identical, then the dissimilarity goes to the weight of the evidence of the experiment but not to its admissibility-’
“See also Eddy v. State, 352 So.2d 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1977).”
Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276, 1278-79 (Ala.Crim.App.1979). In Gobble v. State, [Ms. CR-05-0225, February 5, 2010] - So.3d -(Ala.Crim.App.2010), this Court further explained the admissibility of experiments or demonstrations in the courtroom as follows:
“‘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.’
“William A. Schroeder and Jerome A. Hoffman, Alabama Evidence § 12:25 (3d ed.2006) (footnotes omitted).
“In Ivey v. State, 369 So.2d 1276 (Ala.Crim.App.1979), this Court considered whether the circuit court erred in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine the defendant using a full-size[d] mannequin to test the credibility of the defendant’s version of the events. We stated:
[[Image here]]
“ ‘In Lumpkin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 272 , 97 So. 171 (1923), it was held not error to require, upon cross examination, a defendant in a homicide case, who had become a witness in his own behalf, to illustrate before the jury how the fatal fight occurred by showing the motions and actions of the parties to the encounter, with the State’s attorney taking the part of the deceased. Also in [Coats ] v. State, 253 Ala. 290 , 45 So.2d 35 (1950), it was held not error to permit the appellant, at the request of the State during its cross examination and over the objection of defense counsel, to leave the ■witness stand and sit in a chair, in view of the jury, so as to better demonstrate the manner in which the appellant contended he was holding the gun at the time of its discharge.
“ ‘The scope and extent of cross examination rest in the sound discretion of the trial court, Bridges v. State, 284 Ala. 412 , 225 So.2d 821 (1969), as do the scope and extent of experiments and demonstrations. Campbell [v. State, 55 Ala. 80 (1876) ]; [C. Gamble] McElroy[’s Alabama Evidence ], §§ 81.01(3), 81.02(1) [ (3rd ed. 1977) ]. As a general rule experiments and demonstrations should be permitted to be made in the courtroom in the jury’s presence where it reasonably appears that the experiment will aid the jury in ascertaining the truth, where there exists a substantial similarity of conditions and where the experiment will not unfairly prejudice the defendant.’
“369 So.2d at 1279-80. See also Annot., Propriety of Requiring Criminal Defen *43 dant to Exhibit Self, or Perform Physical Act, or Participate in Demonstration, During Trial and in Presence of Jury, 3 A.L.R.4th 874 (1981).”
— So.3d at —. Finally, as this Court explained in Minor v. State, 780 So.2d 707 (Ala.Crim.App.1999), rev’d on other grounds, 780 So.2d 796 (Ala.2000):
“[B]efore the demonstration, the trial court should determine if the prejudicial effect of the demonstration substantially outweighs its probative value. Even if the trial court finds the demonstration to be relevant and helpful to the jury, the trial court may still exclude it if the probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. See Rule 403, Ala. R. Evid.; [Charles W. Gamble,] McElroyPs] Alabama Evidence § 81.02 [ (5th ed.1996) ]. ‘The power to make this determination is vested in the trial court.’ Hayes v. State, 717 So.2d [30,] 37 [ (Ala.Crim.App.1997) ].”
780 So.2d at 763. See also Mitchell v. State, 84 So.3d 968 (Ala.Crim.App.2010).
Here, the trial court properly allowed the prosecutor to ask McCray to hold the murder weapon and the dog leash. It was relevant and admissible to test McCray’s version of events, 19 to aid the jury in ascertaining the truth about the murder, and to rebut McCray’s claim of heat of passion and his repeated allegations on direct examination that he did not remember all that had happened. Moreover, after thoroughly reviewing the record, this Court finds that the prejudicial effect of the demonstration did not outweigh its probative value. Therefore, this Court finds no error, much less plain error, as to this claim.
Name-Calling
McCray further contends that the prosecutor improperly called him names during closing arguments. Specifically, McCray argues that the prosecutor improperly referred to him as a “psychopath,” as a “woman

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4873150. Public record. Not legal advice.