Ex parte Michael Brown (In re Michael Brown v. State of Alabama)

Summary

The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed Michael Brown’s capital-murder conviction and death sentence. The court assumed, without deciding, that admitting a detective’s testimony about an unavailable witness’s out-of-court statements may have been erroneous under the Confrontation Clause and the doctrine of curative admissibility. Because Brown did not object at trial and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, the court held that any error did not constitute plain error.

Holdings

1. The court did not decide whether the challenged testimony was admissible under Crawford or the doctrine of curative admissibility because, even assuming it was inadmissible, the error could not constitute plain error.
2. Even assuming that the admission of the detective's testimony concerning Smith's statements was erroneous, it was harmless and did not rise to the level of plain error.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the admission of Robert Smith's testimonial out-of-court statements violated Brown's constitutional right to confront witnesses under Crawford v. Washington.
2. Whether the Court of Criminal Appeals correctly applied the doctrine of curative admissibility to permit testimony about Smith's statements after defense counsel's cross-examination of the investigating detective.
3. Whether, assuming the challenged testimony was inadmissible, its admission constituted plain error requiring reversal.

Disposition

affirmed