On Friday, March 27th, 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 Hughes v. State, CR-2024-0935 (Ala. Crim. App. March 27, 2026), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Hughes’s murder conviction and habitual offender life sentence because the circuit court improperly commented on the evidence. During her testimony, Hughes acknowledged that she had prior convictions but said that they had all been committed on the same day. After testimony ended for the day, the circuit court brought up the fact that Hughes’s convictions did not occur on the same day, but at least four different days. Over an objection by the defense, the next day circuit court instructed the jury that Hughes gave incorrect testimony and gave the jury the dates of Hughes’s convictions.
On appeal, the Court held that the circuit court’s comments were erroneous and prejudicial. In doing so, the Court emphasized the centrality of Hughes’s testimony to her defense theory that she acted in self-defense. This made her credibility a crucial factual determination, and the circuit court’s comments directly suggested that Hughes had not been truthful—even if the circuit court didn’t explicitly say that Hughes was lying. As a result, a new trial was required.
Our very own J.D. Lloyd handled this appeal.
In D.D.B. v. State, CR-2025-0386 (Ala. Crim. App. March 27, 2026), the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed D.D.B.’s adjudication for certain persons forbidden to possess a pistol. The juvenile court denied D.D.B.’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during an unlawful seizure that violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that the juvenile court’s decision was wrong.
The issue in this case was whether law enforcement had sufficient grounds to conduct a Terry stop. Terry stops are what happens when an officer has reasonable suspicion to pull a car over or stop a person on the street. If challenged the officer has to be able to provide reasons that justified the Terry stop. This is usually a very threshold as long as proper reason can be articulated.
Prior to D.D.B.’s interaction with law enforcement, concerns had been made about potential gang violence and breaking and entering in the area. On the day in question, an officer observed D.D.B.’s vehicle legally parked on the street. There was no loud music playing or no gun shots. Law enforcement had not received any calls regarding the house the car was in front of that day or any previous complaints involving D.D.B.’s car. Moreover, previous complaints had not described any of the individuals involved. Nevertheless, the officer flipped his lights on and pulled in behind D.D.B—beginning a Terry stop.
On appeal. the Court made clear that merely being in a high crime area isn’t sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. There has to be something else based on what the officer observes. So, here there was no reasonable suspicion based on what the officer testified to because all he saw was D.D.B.’s car legally parked on the street. Moreover, the Court held that, even if turning on the police car’s lights did not constitute a Terry stop, based the circumstances—lights, “threatening presence of two officers,” and one blocking the passenger’s “escape”—there was a Fourth Amendment seizure because a reasonable person would not have been believed himself free to go.
In Byrd v. State, CR-2023-0545 (Ala. Crim. App. March 27, 2026), the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the summary dismissal of Byrd’s capital convictions and death sentence. Like all death penalty cases, this case involved a number of different issues—most of which related to ineffective assistance of counsel.
In Williams v. State, CR-2024-0290 (Ala. Crim. App. March 27, 2026), the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Williams’ capital convictions and death sentence. Williams pleaded guilty to several capital murder counts involving a five-year-old girl and was sentenced to death. He later sent letters to the AG’s office saying he wanted to drop his appeals and have an execution date set. The circuit court held a hearing and determined that Williams was competent to represent himself and waive his rights to counsel and appeal.
Even though it is a plea and Williams waived briefing, because it is a death penalty case, appellate review for waiver and sufficiency is required by law. The Court determined that there was no Faretta issue and that there was sufficient evidence before affirming the capital convictions.
On the technical side, because Williams waived briefing, his convictions for non-capital offenses included in the plea deal were not part of the automatic review and the Court dismissed the appeal for those convictions.
