extension of the identity exception in Alabama

2009Ex parte Darby, 516 So.2d 786, 789 (Ala.1987). “[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception — where the charged crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime.” Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). “ ‘When extrinsic offense evidence is introduced to prove identity, the likeness of the offenses is the crucial consideration.

2009As the majority recognizes, the common plan, scheme, or design exception to the exclusionary rule “is essentially coextensive with the identity exception” and must be analyzed under the same standards. 3 Ex parte Darby, 516 So.2d 786, 789 (Ala.1987). “[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception — where the charged crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime.” Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App.

2014This Court stated: “ ‘[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception — where the charged crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime.’ Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

2009During the testimony of Charles Cooper, an alleged accomplice of Billups’s who testified that he had participated in the quadruple murders with Bill-ups, the trial court instructed the jury that Cooper’s testimony about the quadruple murders could be considered only if the jury believed it was “relevant to the issues of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident in Stevon Lockett’s death.” (R. 792.) I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the two offenses were so similar that they were committed in the same novel and peculiar m

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.'" Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala. 2000), quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted). "`[E]vidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and *498 those surrounding the presently charged crime "exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person."'" Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.A

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.’ ” Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala.2000), quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted). “ ‘[Ejvidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and those surrounding the presently charged crime “exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person.” ’ ” Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.App

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.’ ” Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677 , 680 (Ala.2000) (quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504 , 1508 (11th Cir. 1994) (further citations omitted)).

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.’ ” Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala.2000), quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted). “ ‘[Ejvidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and those surrounding the presently charged crime “exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person.” ’ ” Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.App

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.’ ” Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677 , 680 (Ala.2000) (quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504 , 1508 (11th Cir. 1994) (further citations omitted)).

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.’ ” Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala.2000), quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted). “ ‘[Ejvidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and those surrounding the presently charged crime “exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person.” ’ ” Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.App

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.'" Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala. 2000), quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted). "`[E]vidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and *498 those surrounding the presently charged crime "exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person."'" Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.A

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.’ ” Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala.2000), quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted). “ ‘[Ejvidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and those surrounding the presently charged crime “exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person.” ’ ” Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.App

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.'" Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala. 2000), quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted). "`[E]vidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and *498 those surrounding the presently charged crime "exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person."'" Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.A

2009The physical similarity must be such that it marks the offenses as the handiwork of the accused.’ ” Ex parte Baker, 780 So.2d 677, 680 (Ala.2000), quoting United States v. Clemons, 32 F.3d 1504, 1508 (11th Cir.1994) (further citations omitted). “ ‘[Ejvidence of a prior crime is admissible only when the circumstances surrounding the prior crime and those surrounding the presently charged crime “exhibit such a great degree of similarity that anyone viewing the two offenses would naturally assume them to have been committed by the same person.” ’ ” Irvin v. State, 940 So.2d 331, 347 (Ala.Crim.App

2009Bowden v. State, 538 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Ala. 1988); Atkisson v. State, [ 640 So.2d 33 ] (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Register v. State, [ 640 So.2d 3 ] (Ala.Crim.App.1993)." Williamson v. State, 629 So.2d 777, 780 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). "[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception—where the charged *494 crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime." Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

2009Bowden v. State, 538 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Ala.1988); Atkisson v. State, [ 640 So.2d 33 ] (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Register v. State, [ 640 So.2d 3 ] (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” Williamson v. State, 629 So.2d 777, 780 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). “[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception — where the charged crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime.” Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

2009Bowden v. State, 538 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Ala. 1988); Atkisson v. State, [ 640 So.2d 33 ] (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Register v. State, [ 640 So.2d 3 ] (Ala.Crim.App.1993)." Williamson v. State, 629 So.2d 777, 780 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). "[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception—where the charged *494 crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime." Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).

2009Bowden v. State, 538 So.2d 1226, 1227 (Ala.1988); Atkisson v. State, [ 640 So.2d 33 ] (Ala.Crim.App.1993); Register v. State, [ 640 So.2d 3 ] (Ala.Crim.App.1993).” Williamson v. State, 629 So.2d 777, 780 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). “[T]he plan, scheme, or design exception is an extension of the identity exception — where the charged crime and the collateral crime are committed in the same novel or peculiar manner, evidence of the collateral crime is admissible to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the charged crime.” Register v. State, 640 So.2d 3, 6 (Ala.Crim.App.1993).