On September 18th, Steven Richard Mulkey tragically took the lives of Siu Mei Kao and Ching Kao in the Birmingham suburb of Irondale. The Kaos, an elderly married couple, owned a local motel and had hired Mulkey as a handyman to assist with upkeep due to their declining health. Their relationship with Mulkey appeared cordial, and there was no indication of any conflict that would foreshadow violence. In Irondale, everyone knew the Kaos, their motel, and their handyman. No one saw the brutal killings coming.

At approximately 2:30 A.M. on September 18th, an Irondale police officer noticed a vehicle leaving the motel and circling around the back. Finding this behavior suspicious, the officer investigated and stopped the car. Behind the wheel was Mulkey, who claimed he was feeding the Kaos’ dogs, something he had forgotten to do earlier in the day. Though the explanation seemed odd, it was plausible at the time, especially since the Kaos had informed others they would be out of town. Unbeknownst to the officer, the bodies of Siu Mei Kao and Ching Kao were in the trunk of the vehicle. The couple was soon reported missing, and a review of the motel’s CCTV footage revealed a brutal murder committed by Mulkey. After a multi-state manhunt, Mulkey was located and arrested in Virginia. Mulkey would later be charged with a double homicide for his crimes.

Mulkey was found guilty of murder by a jury and sentenced to death for the killings of the Kaos. He appealed this decision to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. On May 2, 2025, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld his conviction, finding no errors in the trial proceedings. This raises an important question: how does a court review a death penalty case on appeal, and how does it determine whether the trial court made the correct decision when a person’s life is at stake?

Under Alabama Law “This Court, [(the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals)], will continue to review the entire record for plain error in all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. Mulkey v. State, No. CR-2023-0304, 2025 WL 1272751, at *3 (Ala. Crim. App. May 2, 2025). Plain error is “error that it is so obvious that the failure to notice it would seriously affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings.” Ex parte Trawick, 698 So. 2d 162, 167 (Ala. 1997). Accordingly, in a death penalty case the appellate court will review the entire record for “plain errors”. See Id.

While the court reviewed several issues for plain error, one issue is particularly illustrative of how such a review is conducted. Specifically, “Mulkey argue[d] that the circuit court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter due to voluntary intoxication.” Mulkey, WL 1272751, at *3. Under Alabama law, intoxication “can negate the specific intent necessary for an intentional murder, reducing the offense to manslaughter.” Id. In support of this argument, “Mulkey testified at trial that, before the murders, he had smoked marijuana and ingested ‘a whole gram sack’ of cocaine laced with methamphetamine.” Id. Based on this, Mulkey claimed he could not have formed the intent to intentionally murder the Kaos due to his intoxication.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed the trial court’s refusal to give a lesser-included instruction through the lens of plain error. The Court concluded that “to negate the specific intent required for a murder conviction, the degree of the accused's intoxication must amount to insanity.” Id. In this case, Mulkey’s conduct fell far short of that standard. “[T]he surveillance footage of the murders, which showed Mulkey methodically kill the Kaos, drag the bodies to the back of the office. [This] [was] in an apparent attempt to hide them, and then leave the scene.” Id. Further, Mulkey “was aware... of what he had done… [and] of the wrongness of his actions.” Accordingly, Mulkey’s intoxication did not amount to insanity. See id. Based on this conclusion, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision to deny a jury instruction on the lesser offense.

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reached the correct decision in this case. The record makes clear that Mulkey’s intoxication did not rise to the level of insanity, his actions were deliberate and calculated. This case demonstrates how appellate courts function: although your case may not involve capital murder, appellate courts review trial records in a similar manner, carefully evaluating whether legal errors occurred. It also illustrates the self-correcting nature of our judicial system and its commitment to fairness. Before the state can impose the ultimate punishment, taking a person’s life, it must ensure that every potential legal issue has been reviewed. This appellate process adds crucial safeguards, helping to prevent wrongful convictions and allowing individuals the opportunity to fully defend themselves.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Joe Joe Ingram Law, LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief * Get Results.