On Friday, August 21st, the Court of Criminal Appeals published new opinions—including a couple of wins for defendants. Here are some of the highlights from those opinions.
In Austin v. State, CR-2025-0978 (Ala. Crim. App. August 21, 2026), the Court affirmed Austin’s convictions for capital murder and assault based on discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle. On appeal, Austin argued that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence of his intent to kill or cause serious physical injury, the admission of graphic pictures from the scene, the constitutionality of his statement to law enforcement, and victim impact testimony.
On the sufficiency issue, the Court held that there was evidence that Austin’s intent to kill could be inferred from the evidence given his use of a deadly weapon. Regarding the pictures, the Court relied on previous decisions making it almost impossible to stop the State from using graphic pictures that are relevant to the case. The Court rejected Austin’s argument about his statement based on the evidence before determining that the husband of the surviving victim was allowed to testify regarding her current medical condition.
The Court did, however, reverse Austin’s conviction for discharging a firearm into an occupied vehicle because it was a lesser-included offense of capital murder under the circumstances.
In Wallace v. State, CR-2026-0034 (Ala. Crim. App. August 21, 2026), and Hatfield v. State, CR-2026-0212 (Ala. Crim. App. August 21, 2026), the Court reversed the revocation of probation and community corrections because the trial court relied solely on hearsay testimony—which is not allowed.
In Brown v. State, CR-2024-0040 (Ala. Crim. App. August 21, 2026), the Court affirmed Brown’s capital murder conviction and death sentence based on the death of a police officer. Like most death penalty decisions, this one involves a wide range of issue from jury selection through sentencing. The most notable aspect of this decision was how it addressed Brown’s argument that the circuit court’s jury instructions regarding capital murder and the lesser-included offense of heat-of-passion manslaughter were erroneous. While the Court agreed that the circuit court’s instructions were erroneous, it also determined that this error did not matter because Brown was not entitled to jury instructions on heat-of-passion manslaughter as a lesser-included offense. Brown argued that he was entitled to the instruction based on his fear of an imminent assault; but, under the circumstances of the case, the Court held that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the instruction.
Finally, in T.L.W. v. State, CR-2025-0412 (Ala. Crim. App. August 21, 2026), the Court withdrew its previous opinion issued on May 1, 2026, and substituted a new opinion. The new opinion appears to reach the same decision as the previous opinion using the same reasoning but with some changes to the language the Court used.
T.L.W. was adjudicated delinquent for DV3 and placed on probation. She later escaped from a court ordered mental health appointment and “remained at large for approximately one month.” When she was captured, probation officer filed to revoke her probation based on the new offense of escape and the State filed a delinquency petition charging escape. T.L.W. argued that § 12-15-213(c), Ala. Code 1975, expands double jeopardy protections for juveniles and that she could be revoked or a new delinquency petition could be filed, but not both.
The Court disagreed and held that § 12-15-213(c) does not expand double jeopardy rights. Revocations and new charges work the same for juveniles as it does for adults.
