Barksdale v. State
Decision Date | 31 March 2000 |
Citation | 788 So.2d 898 |
Parties | Tony BARKSDALE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mark Allen Treadwell III, Dadeville, for appellant.
Tony Barksdale, appellant, pro se.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and A. Vernon Barnett IV, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Tony Barksdale, was convicted of two counts of capital murder. The first count charged the appellant with murder during the course of a robbery in the first degree, and the second count charged him with murder caused by the use of a deadly weapon while the victim was in a vehicle. See § 13A-5-40(a)(2) and § 13A-5-40(a)(17), Ala.Code 1975, respectively. The jury, by a vote of 11 to 1, recommended the death penalty. After a hearing, the court accepted the jury's recommendation and sentenced the appellant to death by electrocution.
The facts of this case, as set out by the trial court, are as follows:
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress his pretrial statements. Initially, the appellant argues that the statements were taken pursuant to an illegal detention by the police and that the statements made during the custodial interrogation were therefore involuntary. Alternatively, the appellant argues that if he was, in fact, under arrest at the time he gave his statements, his arrest was illegal because the police lacked probable cause for the arrest.
This Court has addressed the question whether an individual was in custody by looking to the following guidelines:
Hooks v. State, 534 So.2d 329, 348 (Ala.Cr. App.1987), aff'd, 534 So.2d 371 (Ala.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1050, 109 S.Ct. 883, 102 L.Ed.2d 1005 (1989).
Woods v. State, 641 So.2d 316, 320-21 (Ala.Cr.App.1993).
Here, the record reveals that the trial court held a suppression hearing before it received the statements into evidence. During this hearing, Investigator L.C. Gill, of the Marshall County Sheriffs Department, testified that he and Investigator Phil Sims took the appellant into custody around 2:00 a.m. on December 4, 1995. He testified that, after restraining the appellant with handcuffs, he placed him in the police vehicle and read him his rights, pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), from a card that he carried with him. He testified that he then asked the appellant where he had hidden the victim's car and the appellant replied that he "didn't know nothing about no car." Investigator Gill testified that he did not ask the appellant any further questions.
Investigator Phil Sims, also of the Marshall County Sheriffs Department, testified that he interviewed the appellant at approximately 3:50 a.m. on the morning of December 4, 1995. He testified that, before questioning the appellant, he read him his rights from the Miranda waiver-of-rights form. The appellant verbally acknowledged that he understood his rights, and he signed the waiver form. Investigator Sims testified that he questioned the appellant about the events surrounding the murder and his involvement in stealing the Ford Taurus in Guntersville. He testified that the appellant admitted that he was involved in stealing the car from Guntersville but merely smiled in response to the questions concerning the murder. Sims testified that the interview lasted approximately 10 minutes.
Investigator John Mashburn and Investigator Lisa White, of the Guntersville Police Department, both testified that they interviewed the appellant at approximately 9:58 a.m., on December 4, 1995. Investigator...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. State
...that resulted in her death, it was not appropriate for the court to find the existence of this aggravating circumstance. In Barksdale v. State, 788 So.2d 898 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 788 So.2d 915 (Ala.2000), we addressed the application of this aggravating circumstance, stating as "I......
-
Turner v. State
...the trial court to state facts concerning the prolonged suffering, pain, and torture inflicted on the victim. See Barksdale v. State, 788 So.2d 898 (Ala.Crim.App.2000). For the reasons detailed above, this case is due to be, and is hereby, remanded to the circuit court of Limestone County f......
-
Shanklin v. State
...White v. State, 900 So. 2d 1249 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004); Wynn v. State, 804 So. 2d 1122 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000); Barksdale v. State, 788 So. 2d 898 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000); Freeman v. State, 776 So. 2d 160 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999); Burtram v. State, 733 So. 2d 921 (Ala. Crim. App. 1998); Hyde v.......
-
Howard v. State
...to this language, we find that it is sufficient. Randle, 827 So.2d at 713-14. ¶ 79. Howard additionally relies on Barksdale v. State, 788 So.2d 898 (Ala. Crim.App.2000), as support for his argument that the limiting instruction was fatally flawed. We have recently rejected the identical arg......