Barnes v. State
| Decision Date | 24 August 1990 |
| Citation | 571 So.2d 372 |
| Parties | Naman BARNES, Jr. v. STATE. CR 89-623. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Arthur P. Clarke, Mobile, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and James F. Hampton, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Naman Barnes, Jr., was indicted and convicted for two counts of attempted murder in violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-4-2, and § 13A-6-2. He was sentenced to two consecutive 20-year terms of imprisonment. Three issues are raised on appeal.
Barnes contends that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to administer an oath to the jury venire prior to voir dire examination. The voir dire proceedings in this case were not included in the record on appeal. The burden is on Barnes to establish on the record all facts necessary for this Court to make an intelligent ruling. We cannot consider statements contained in Barnes's brief concerning circumstances not reflected by the record. Allen v. State, 382 So.2d 1147, 1155 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 1158 (Ala.1980).
Additionally, we note that the record does contain the court reporter's statement that "[a] jury was impaneled and sworn." "Where the record on appeal is silent, it will be presumed that what ought to have been done was not only done, but was rightly done." Jolly v. State, 405 So.2d 76, 77 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).
Barnes contends that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing into evidence testimony of Barnes's alleged collateral criminal acts. We disagree.
In addition to Barnes's indictment on two counts for the attempted murders of Lymon Sanford and his wife Patricia Sanford, Barnes was also indicted in a separate proceeding for the third-degree burglary of the trailer owned by Henry Wiggins, a neighbor of the Sanfords. The burglary allegedly occurred immediately prior to the attempted murders.
The State's motion to consolidate these offenses was denied by the trial court. Prior to the State's presentation of its case, Barnes filed a motion in limine to prevent any testimony of the alleged burglary in Barnes's trial for two counts of attempted murder. The court declined to rule on the motion until the close of the State's case. According to the trial court, if the State was able to prove that the burglary occurred before the attempted murders and that the fruits of the burglary were in Barnes's possession at the time of the commission of the attempted murders, then the evidence of the prior crime would be admissible as proving motive.
The victims, Lymon and Patricia Sanford, testified that, at approximately 10:30 a.m. on August 1, 1989, they heard shots coming from the direction of the property of their neighbor, Henry Wiggins, and that they heard Wiggins's dog barking. Because Lymon Sanford knew that Wiggins was not at home, the Sanfords drove over to Wiggins's trailer. The Sanfords testified that upon arriving at the trailer, they saw Barnes run into the woods carrying a rifle. Mr. Sanford then got out of his truck and approached Barnes to question him about the gunshots and his presence on Wiggins's property. According to Mr. Sanford, Barnes lay on the ground and asked Mr. Sanford if he owned the property on which Sanford was standing. When Mr. Sanford replied that the property belonged to his friend, Barnes stood up with a blue steel revolver in his hand, aimed the pistol at the door of the truck where Mrs. Sanford was sitting and shot into the door of the truck. The bullet entered right below the window ledge of the truck but did not strike Mrs. Sanford. Mr. Sanford then testified that while he ran back to his truck to escape with his wife, Barnes shot him three times. Both Mr. and Mrs. Sanford made positive in-court identifications of Barnes as the person who fired the shots which struck the truck in which Mrs. Sanford was sitting and the shots which struck Mr. Sanford.
Henry Wiggins then testified that his trailer had been burglarized sometime after 6:00 a.m. on August 1, 1989, and that a Smith and Wesson blue steel revolver, a Marlin high powered rifle, a Winchester shotgun, ammunition, and approximately $100 in coins were taken. The State also provided expert testimony which established that Barnes's fingerprints were found in Wiggins's trailer and that footprints found at the scene of the shootings matched shoes found in the home of Barnes's mother, which she identified as belonging to Barnes.
At the close of the State's case, the trial court admitted all testimony of the alleged burglary under the "motive" exception and denied Barnes's motion for mistrial.
Evidence of a defendant's commission of collateral crimes is generally inadmissible as substantive evidence offered to establish the defendant's guilt of a particular crime. Dewhart v. State, 455 So.2d 167, 169 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 455 So.2d 167 (Ala.1984). Evidence of the collateral criminal activity is admissible, however, if it relates to the defendant's motive and intent to commit the crime presently charged. Pride v. State, 473 So.2d 576, 578 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), cert. quashed, 473 So.2d 576 (Ala.1985).
Clearly, in the case sub judice the evidence of the burglary of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). Intent may be presumed from the use of a deadly weapon or from other circumstances. Barnes v. State, 571 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). Intent is usually proven by circumstantial evidence. Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788 (Ala.Crim.App.2000)." Blount v. Stat......
-
Parris v. State
...(the attempt statute), and 13A-6-2 (murder)." Chaney v. State, 417 So.2d 625, 626-27 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). See also Barnes v. State, 571 So.2d 372, 374 (Ala.Cr.App.1990). "Attempted murder is a specific intent crime.... An attempt to commit murder requires the perpetrator to act with the speci......
-
Chapman v. State
...551 So.2d 1169 (Ala.Crim.App.1989). Intent may be presumed from the use of a deadly weapon or from other circumstances. Barnes v. State, 571 So.2d 372 (Ala.Crim.App.1990). Intent is usually proven by circumstantial evidence. Smith v. State, 795 So.2d 788 (Ala.Crim.App.2000).”Blount v. State......
-
Edwards v. State
...of January 18, 2011, "conflicting evidence presents a jury question which is not subject to review on appeal." Barnes v. State, 571 So. 2d 372, 374 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990) (citing Willis v. State, 447 So. 2d 199, 201 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)). "'The weight of the evidence, and the credibility ......