On January 17, 2025 the Alabama Supreme Court and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals released new opinions—including two wins for the defense side.
Ex Parte Ramirez
In Ex parte Ramirez, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision in Ramirez v. State. Ramierz was charged with DUI and possession of drug paraphernalia in the district court and was set for trial. The State filed a notice of intent to offer forensic evidence through a certificate of analysis instead of by having the expert forensic witness testify. Before trial, however, Ramirez pleaded guilty in the district court and appealed to the circuit court for trial de novo. This essentially means a do over in the circuit court. In the circuit court, however, the State did not file a new notice of intent regarding the forensic evidence and the circuit court allowed the State to present the evidence over Ramirez’s objection.
On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals had held that a notice of intent to rely on the DFS certificate of analysis in the district court was sufficient to provide notice to the defendant after the defendant had appealed for trial de novo in the circuit court. The Court of Criminal Appeals’ analysis was largely based on the idea that a the do-over allowed by appeal de novo to the circuit court does not completely wipe the slate clean—Ramirez had been put on notice once and that was sufficient.
The Supreme Court disagreed holding that the Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision was in conflict with Supreme Court precedent. When a defendant properly seeks a trial de novo in the circuit court—whether from the district court or a municipal court—the procedural slate is wiped clean. The prior conviction in the district or municipal court remains intact unless or until it is overturned, but procedural requirements—like notice of intent—have to be done as if for the first time.
Ex Parte State
In Ex parte State, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied the State’s petition for a writ of mandamus asking that the circuit court’s order granting Antonio Pogue’s motion for new trial be reversed. Pogue was charged and tried for trafficking methamphetamine. During trial, the State presented forensic testimony from an expert who had not performed the drug-chemistry analysis. The analysis who performed the analysis had retired. Pogue objected to the substitute expert at trial but was overruled, and Pogue was convicted.
Prior to sentencing, however, the United States Supreme Court released its decision in Smith v. Arizona, 402 U.S. 779 (2024), about the Confrontation Clause problems with testimony from expert witnesses who had not performed the analysis that they were testifying about. Smith held that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the State from admitting testimonial statements from an absent witness to prove the results of forensic testing. What this means is that when the State wants to present evidence of drug testing through the report of the expert who performed the testing, a substitute expert cannot testify about the report if the basis of the substitute expert’s testimony relies on the report being true.
For Pogue’s case, Smith proved problematic because the expert who performed the testing did not testify and part of the substitute expert’s testimony was based on the certificate of analysis, which in Alabama must be signed by and sworn to as true and correct, under penalty of law, by the person making the examination or analysis,” This meant that the certificate of analysis was testimonial and required the expert who performed the testing to testify unless an exception to the Confrontation Clause was met.
State v. M.D.D.
Finally, in State v. M.D.D., the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the circuit court’s order granting relief for a Brady violation. Brady violations occur when the State does not properly disclose information prior to trial. The Court held that the circuit court’s basis for granting relief did not sufficiently support the prejudice requirement of a Brady violation.
