Robert Lee Jones v. State of Alabama

REL: December 16, 2022
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.
Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023
_________________________
CR-2022-0672
_________________________
Robert Lee Jones
v.
State of Alabama
Appeal from Baldwin Circuit Court
(CC-21-1852, CC-21-1854, and CC-21-1855)
KELLUM, Judge.
AFFIRMED BY UNPUBLISHED MEMORANDUM.
McCool, Cole, and Minor, JJ., concur. Windom, P.J., concurs in part
and dissents in part, with opinion.
2022-0543
WINDOM, Presiding Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the majority's decision to affirm Robert Lee Jones's
conviction for first-degree sexual abuse. Where I must part with the
majority is the portion of the opinion related to the offenses that occurred
on June 7, 2020 -- shooting into an occupied building and first-degree
assault. I agree with the majority that the State proved that someone
fired a shot into A.A.'s occupied dwelling and that A.A. was the victim of
a first-degree assault based on the gunshot wound she received. I cannot
agree, however, that the State proved that Jones was the perpetrator of
these two offenses.
The majority sets forth the evidence on which the State relied to
support the charges of shooting into an occupied building and first-degree
assault as follows:
"The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to
the State, established that Jones threatened to kill A.A. if she
told police that Jones had sexually assaulted her. A.A.
believed that Jones would kill her and did not report the
crime; however, A.A.'s cousin contacted the police. Within
days of the report to police, A.A.'s house was shot at twice.
The second shooting occurred while A.A. was inside the house
and resulted in a gunshot wound to A.A.'s leg. A.A.'s femoral
artery was severed. A.A. initially identified Jones as the
shooter to police but testified at trial that she did not see who
shot her. Hours after A.A. was shot, police found wet, dark
clothes in Jones's house. Testimony indicated that it was
2
2022-0543
raining when A.A. was shot inside her apartment. A.A.
testified that she had no difficulties with anyone else and that
Jones was the only person to threaten her life."
The majority is, of course, correct that this Court must view the
evidence in a light most favorable to the State. See Ex parte Burton, 783
So. 2d 887, 890-91 (Ala. 2000). Yet, even under that standard, I would
hold that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict Jones of those
two offenses. A.A.'s testimony was clear that she did not see the person
who shot her through her living-room window on the rainy night of June
7, 2020. (R. 142.) The circumstantial evidence connecting Jones to the
offenses was tenuous – that, several days before the shooting, Jones had
sexually assaulted A.A.; that, also several days before the shooting, Jones
had threatened to kill her if she contacted law enforcement about the
sexual assault; and that it was raining on the night of the shooting and
Inv. Arthur Odom saw wet, dark clothes lying on Jones's couch after the
shooting.
" ' "While a jury is under a duty to draw
whatever permissible inferences it may from the
evidence, including circumstantial evidence, mere
speculation, conjecture, or surmise that the
accused is guilty of the offense charged does not
authorize a conviction. Smith v. State, 345 So. 2d
325 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976), cert. quashed, 345 So.
2d 329 (Ala. 1977); Colley v. State, 41 Ala. App.
3
2022-0543
273, 128 So. 2d 525 (1961). A defendant should not
be convicted on mere suspicion or out of fear that
he might have committed the crime. Harnage v.
State, 49 Ala. App. 563, 274 So. 2d 333 (1972)." ' "
Folds v. State, 143 So. 3d 845, 848-49 (Ala. Crim. App. 2013) (quoting Ex
parte Williams, 468 So. 2d 99, 101-02 (Ala. 1985), overruled on other
grounds, Ex parte Carter, 889 So. 2d 528 (Ala. 2004)). Based on the
evidence presented at trial, I believe any finding that Jones shot A.A.
through her living-room window was altogether speculative.
Because I do not believe the State's evidence was legally sufficient
to prove that Jones fired a gun into an occupied building or that he was
responsible for the first-degree assault – A.A.’s gunshot wound – that
resulted therefrom, I believe the circuit court erred in denying Jones's
motion for a judgment of acquittal with respect to those two charges.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the decision that
affirms those convictions.
4