J.D. Lloyd - Friday, April 27, 2018
Pruitt v. State 16-0956
Pruitt pleaded guilty to two counts of committing a sex act with a student, violations of § 13A-6-81, and two counts of distributing obscene material to
a minor, violations of § 13A-12-200.5. These offenses involved 3 students Pruitt formerly taught. Pruitt was a teacher in the Blount County School
system. She taught at the Locust Fork High School during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years. She taught the three students during this time. Beginning
in the 2014-15 school year, Pruitt was transferred to Appalachian High School. During October 2014, she sent Student #1 nude Snapchat pictures, had
deviate sexual intercourse with Student #2, and had sexual intercourse with Student #3. For all intents and purposes, the acts were consensual. These
facts were stipulated by both sides. Prior to pleading guilty, Pruitt, relying on Lawrence v. Texas, argued that the statutes and charges were
unconstitutional as applied to her. AFFIRMED The Court of Criminal Appeals rejected the Lawrence-based argument
on the grounds that Lawrence explicitly held that the decision didn’t apply to conduct involving minors. Further, the Court concluded that the
State has a legitimate state interest in “prohibiting intimate contact between a teacher and a student.” The Court likewise rejected Pruitt’s “consent”
defense since the statute expressly says “consent is not a defense.” Finally, the Court held that the fact that Pruitt did not teach at the same school
as the students did not entitle her to relief. The Court also rejected an argument that her violation for unlawful distribution of obscene material
to a minor didn’t violate her right to Equal Protection to be free from State intervention in a private relationship with a consulting person. The
Court ruled against this argument based on the student being a minor (per § 13A-12-200.1) and previous holdings that the State doesn’t violate Equal
Protection concerns by prohibiting sexual contact with minors.
Towles v. State CR-15-0699
Towles was convicted of capital murder pursuant to §13A-5-40(a)(15) for killing his girlfriend’s son by hitting him on the buttocks with a piece of lumber.
This appealed stemmed from a re-trial after the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed his capital murder conviction and death sentence years back. In
the interim, Towles’ girlfriend pleaded guilty for failing to protect her son from Towles. The girlfriend didn’t testify at trial. Towles’ defense
was that she caused the death and then blackmailed him to help her cover up the child’s death. However, the State impeached Towles by discussing how
she had pleaded guilty for failing to protect her son from Towles. REVERSED The Court concluded that the introduction
of the girlfriend’s conviction into evidence was improper evidence of Towles’ guilt. The Court also concluded that the trial court’s instruction that
“knowledge of the probability of death or great bodily harm is sufficient to constitute murder” impermissibly lessened the State’s burden and undermined
the defense’s argument that the killing was, at most, unintentional. Mr. Towles will now go back for his third trial.
Betton v. State CR-15-1501
Betton was a juvenile capital defendant seeking re-sentencing under Miller v. Alabama. Here, the circuit court re-sentenced him to LWOP without
considering the factors the Alabama Supreme Court announced in Ex parte Henderson. REMANDED The Court held that remand was
necessary for the circuit court to enter specific findings under Ex parte Henderson.
Battles v. State CR-17-0044
In a prosecution for unlawful possession of a pistol by a forbidden person pursuant to § 13A-11-72(a), Battles waived counsel and represented himself at
trial. However, throughout, Battles complained that he didn’t understand the charges against him and complained that he didn’t have the resources necessary
to defend his case. REVERSED The Court concluded that while Battles knowingly waived his right to represent himself at trial, the
circuit court failed to the factors a court must discuss with a defendant pursuant to Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F. 2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1986)
and Tomlin v. State, 601 So. 2d 124 (Ala. 1991). Additionally, the court failed to tell Battles he could withdraw the waiver at any time.
If you or someone you know has been convicted of wrongful criminal charges, there is hope after the trial. Contact us today by clicking HERE.