Ball v. State
Citation | 337 So.2d 31 |
Decision Date | 04 May 1976 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 648 |
Parties | Earnest BALL v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Knox Argo, Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
First degree murder; sentence: life imprisonment.
Appellant was convicted of murdering a police officer in Tuscaloosa. The record on appeal consists of 765 pages. Defense pretrial motions and petitions included: petition for mental examination; motion for preliminary hearing; motion to dismiss/quash the indictment; motion for discovery; motion to require production and suppression; motion to conduct special voir dire examination; motion for reasonable bail; motion for a mistrial; and ten separate petitions for writ of habeas corpus for various purposes. Over 290 pages of the record were consumed with prehearing motions, evidence thereon, arguments, and rulings of the trial court, prior to the receipt of any evidence on the merits. The record was lengthy and the issues logion.
Briefly stated, the shooting occurred when police officers answered a radio dispatch to quiet a disturbance at the residence of the appellant's former wife, Mary Ball. On arriving at the residence, Mary Ball informed Officers Larry Wood and John Thomas that appellant had threatened to kill her and was in a back bedroom armed with a shotgun. She removed her children from the premises and asked the officers to go in and get the appellant out of her house. Her testimony shows that appellant had broken into her house on three separate occasions during that day; the last break-in resulting in the call to the police.
The officers entered the house with pistols drawn. Officer Thomas went down the hall ahead of Woods. Woods heard the door to the first befroom open. He saw the muzzle of a shotgun appear from the bedroom and fire into Thomas. Woods said Thomas shouted, 'Oh my God,' then turned around and said, 'I've been hit.' Thomas then backed into the kitchen and sank to the floor and died.
The bedroom door then closed and Officer Woods fired two shots into the door and retreated to the living room. The evidence clearly established the commission of the offense of murder in the first degree and likewise established the appellant was the guilty party. The weight and sufficiency of the evidence in this regard cannot be disputed.
During pretrial hearing on the myriad of defense motions, appellant attempted to prove that the arresting officers beat him, both at the scene of the shooting and at the police station. Officers testified that it was necessary to rush the bedroom and wrestle the gun away from appellant, which accounted for some minor abrasions. That matter being irrelevant to the issue of appellant's guilt Vel non of murder, further discussion here is not appropriate. It is mentioned for purposes of beckground information.
On April 18, 1973, counsel for appellant filed a petition for mental examination of his client, alleging that he believed that the appellant, 'may be insane now and/or may have been insane at the time of the alleged offense.' In that petition, counsel specifically stated that he believed the appellant to have been suffering from paranoia at the time of the offense, and requested an order pursuant to Title 15, § 425, Code of Alabama 1940, transferring appellant to Bryce Hospital for a determination of his mental condition. The appellant was admitted to the state mental hospital on April 19, 1973. After examination and observation, a report was submitted to the court from three physicians on the Bryce Hospital staff. That report, in pertinent part, is as follows:
The appellant was then ordered by the circuit court to stand trial.
The appellant had originally entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, however, he later insisted on withdrawing his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court allowed withdrawal of that plea with the understanding that it could be reinstated at any later time during the trial. The plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was reinstated by the court on request of defense counsel, prior to trial.
On direct examination, Officer Larry Woods detailed the occurrence from the point of receiving the radio dispatch, through the shooting of Thomas and up to the point of his firing two shots into the door and his identification of the appellant. The State asked no further questions of Woods beyond that point in time.
On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Woods on each detail of his direct testimony, however, when the cross examination went past the point where Woods testified that he fired the two shots and retreated back to his prior position, the District Attorney made the following objection:
The trial judge then recessed the trial and allowed argument on the objection, in chambers, where the following occurred:
The defense argument in pertinent part was as follows:
(Emphasis supplied.)
The record further shows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arthur v. State, 8 Div. 873
...as well as a thorough and sifting cross-examination, belongs to everyone. § 12-21-137, Code of Alabama 1975; Ball v. State, 337 So.2d 31 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 337 So.2d 39 (Ala.1976); Bickerstaff v. State, 369 So.2d 315 (Ala.Cr.App.1979); Trawick v. State, 431 So.2d 574 (Ala.Cr.App.1......
-
Clark v. State
...prosecutor's objection so defense counsel was not able to cross-examine this witness as properly allowed by law. See Ball v. State, 337 So.2d 31, 35 (Ala.Crim.App.1976) and (R. (Clark's appellate brief at p. 100.) Contrary to Clark's contention, it appears that, although the trial court ini......
-
Albarran v. State Of Ala.
...A proper predicate was established for Obdulio's testimony, and the testimony was correctly admitted into evidence. See Ball v. State, 337 So. 2d 31, 36 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976) ("Insanity is a defense which must be proved to the jury........ Inquiry during cross-examination touching upon the......
-
Albarran v. State
...A proper predicate was established for Obdulio's testimony, and the testimony was correctly admitted into evidence. See Ball v. State, 337 So.2d 31, 36 (Ala.Crim.App.1976) ( “Insanity is a defense which must be proved to the jury.... Inquiry during cross-examination touching upon the questi......