Barnes v. State, 7 Div. 880
Decision Date | 20 April 1982 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 880 |
Citation | 415 So.2d 1217 |
Parties | Lonnie BARNES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Joe G. Burnett, Clanton, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Elizabeth Ann Evans, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appellant was convicted of an assault in the second degree on a trial by jury on an indictment charging him with the intentional attempt to cause the death of Stinson Edward Vanderslice by shooting him with a pistol, which, according to Code of Alabama 1975, § 13A-4-2(a), (d)(1), is a Class A felony. Another section, § 13A-6-20(a)(2), provides:
The court charged, with the apparent approval of both parties, that the defendant could be found guilty of a lesser included offense, that assault in the second degree, as prescribed by § 13A-6-20(a)(2) is a lesser offense than the one expressly charged in the indictment, and that it was impliedly included therein.
The only issue raised on appeal is as to the action of the trial court in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial.
The grounds of the motion for a new trial, when considered together, were to the effect that defendant and his attorney had ascertained since the trial that one of the witnesses for the State, who testified that she was an eyewitness to the incident forming the basis of the prosecution and that she saw defendant shoot the alleged victim, was not the person who she testified she was, the female companion of defendant, at the time and place of the alleged crime. She had testified that she was a close friend of the victim and was camping out with him and others at Beeswax Creek on the Coosa River and that she and the victim became husband and wife thereafter. There was evidence at the trial that there were many campers in the area and that the alleged victim, his female companion, and some of their adult companions had been drinking heavily on the night before the alleged crime and on the day thereof. There was also undisputed evidence that defendant and two male companions had been drinking heavily. The evidence was undisputed that the victim and one of the defendant's companions were in a fight against each other just before the alleged crime occurred, which resulted in defendant's said companion being sent to the hospital. The defendant testified that immediately thereafter he left the scene and went home and that he did not shoot the alleged victim. The evidence was undisputed that the alleged victim was shot four times by a pistol in the hand of a man and was sent to a hospital. There was no evidence identifying the man that shot the victim as any person other than defendant.
On the hearing of the motion for a new trial, both of said companions of the defendant on the day of the alleged crime and the defendant testified that the witness who testified as the then wife of the alleged victim was not the person who was with the defendant as his girl friend and companion on the night before and the day of the alleged crime. They were corroborated to some extent by another witness who was at the camp site on the same occasion as the others, in that he gave a different description of defendant's female companion from the description given him of the female who testified.
On the hearing of the motion for a new trial, defendant testified in part upon interrogation by his attorney:
On cross-examination, defendant testified in part:
The State did not introduce any evidence on the hearing of the motion for a new trial. The following is the court's ruling on the motion for a new trial:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moore v. State
...Phelps v. State, 439 So.2d 727 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Pennington v. State, 420 So.2d 845 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Barnes v. State, 415 So.2d 1217 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Summers v. State, 366 So.2d 336 (Ala.Crim.App.1978), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 346 (Ala.1979). In the present case the appellant fai......
-
Frazier v. State
...to meeting the requirements for establishing the right to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Barnes v. State, 415 So.2d 1217 (Ala.Cr.App.1982)." Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496, 504 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1029, 106 S.Ct. 1231, 89 L.Ed.2d 340 (1986). (Emp......
-
Glasco v. State, 8 Div. 489
...to meeting the requirements for establishing the right to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Barnes v. State, 415 So.2d 1217 (Ala.Cr.App.1982)." Baker v. State, 477 So.2d 496, 504 The appellant has failed to satisfy her burden of proof. We do not consider the statements ......
-
McConico v. State
...to meeting the requirements for establishing the right to a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Barnes v. State, 415 So.2d 1217 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). In the present case, the appellant has failed to satisfy this burden of proof. The record reveals that Miss Mitchell told con......