Brodka v. State
Decision Date | 16 July 1974 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 242 |
Citation | 53 Ala.App. 125,298 So.2d 55 |
Parties | Teddy BRODKA, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Wayne P. Turner, Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and John M. Gruenewald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The Grand Jury of Lee County, Alabama, charged the appellant with the first degree murder of his wife, Paula Joyce Brodka, 'by shooting her with a gun or rifle.' The appellant entered pleas of not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity. The jury found the appellant 'guilty of murder in the first degree, and fixed punishment at life imprisonment.' The trial court then entered judgment in accordance with this verdict.
The appellant, according to his testimony, had been having difficulties with his wife, as 'she liked to go out, and he was hard up.' They had been separated for a short time several months prior to the homicide.
The appellant, according to his brothers and his neighbors, had become 'depressed.' His wife had gone back, and they had lived together for several months prior to the homicide, which occurred on the afternoon of April 25, 1973.
The appellant testified as follows:
'Q. Go back to your house on Wednesday afternoon and tell the Court and jury what happened.
'A. Her mother said that she was going to take her home with her. So I went back to the bedroom and my wife was in there and I asked her if she was going to leave. She didn't say anything, but she shook her head, 'Yes.' I said, 'Paula, if you really loved me, you'd stay here.' I said, 'We've got that baby and everything we've worked for since we've been married is in this house.' And I said, 'In a few more months, we'll have our bills paid off.' And I said, 'We could make it work if you wanted to.' She said, 'No,' she was going to leave. Something just came over me. My heart started beating real fast. I don't know what I was doing. I just picked up the gun and I shot her with it.
The appellant also presented the testimony of his brother and a neighbor friend that he had become depressed several months before when his wife had separated from him (R. pp. 162, 173).
The State presented the testimony of the deceased's brother, Dan J. Hawkins, and her mother, Emma Elliott, who had gone over to the home of the deceased and the appellant on the afternoon of Wednesday, April 25, 1973. According to Hawkins, the appellant came into the room and stated that he wanted to start the conversation as follows:
'A. The discussion was all around Teddy and Paula. Teddy came in and he said, 'I want to start the conversation by asking Paula did she ever run around' on him.
'Q. And what did Paula say?
'A. Paula said,
'A. Paula--
Thereafter, the appellant and his wife went back into the rear of the house and an argument began. Her brother, Dan Hawkins, testified as follows:
'Q. All right. What was said then?
'A. That's when Paula walked into the bedroom and Teddy followed and they were talking. And I don't know exactly what they said because at that time I got up and walked to the front door and I was standing at the front door, looking out and I could hear them talking but I couldn't make out what they were saying.
'Q. All right. So you were at the front door. It wasn't the door leading to the bedroom, but the door leading out the front of the house?
'A. Yes, sir.
'Q. And you say you could hear them talking but you couldn't hear what they were saying?
'A. No, sir.
'Q. Could you hear any argument between the two of them?
'A. They weren't arguing.
'Q. All right. What did you then hear, if anything?
'A. About that time, Mother said something to me and I told her to hush; you know, I was trying to hear what they were saying, and I couldn't make it out and about that time, I heard something sounded like--
'Q. Now, Dan--
'A. I heard something like Teddy knocking Paula up against--I heard Paula scream, 'No, Teddy, no!' And she screamed, 'No!' And about that time I heard something sounded like he was hitting her up against their thin closet door, just 'tap, tap, tap,' and I run and pushed Mother out of the way and run into the bedroom and he was standing up with the gun pointed at my sister's head; just standing right over her, shooting. And when I come through the door, he shot and turned around and fired at me. I jumped and kicked him and grabbed hold of the gun at the same time he fired at me, before I even touched it. And then we scuffled for the gun and I kept the gun pointed at the other end of the room from where my sister and my mother were, and Mother came running in and he swung the gun around towards her and I throwed him--we both went back up over on the bed and I was trying to unload the gun and get it away from him and get the safety on at the same time.
The deceased's mother, Mrs. Emma Elliott, described the conversation with her daughter, Paula, the morning of the homicide, as follows:
'Q. While you were in the house that morning, state whether or not your daughter there, while you and your daughter, Paula, and their little girl, Rhonda, and the defendant were in the house, state whether or not your daughter made a complaint to you about something Teddy had done to her.
'A. Yes, sir. I went in the kitchen and I started washing some of her dishes and she come in there and she got ready and told me, she said, 'Mother, I can't live with Teddy no more after the way he done me last night.' She said, 'He beat me up last night.'
'Q. Did she show you any bruises about her body at that time?
'A. She had scratches on her neck and she showed me and her head was black right here (indicating) and had scratches and blue places on her arm and she said she had them on her body and she would show them to me after we got to work. And about that time--we wasn't whispering or anything, we were just talking, 'cause he was in there--I didn't--I liked Teddy. I didn't--and he was just in there and he walked around in there and got him a cup of coffee.
'Q. Did he say anything about what she was telling you?
'A. I don't think so. I don't know.
'Q. Did you ask him about what she had been telling you?
'A. See, he heard it, 'cause we was talking and he come through the kitchen door.'
She testified that she went back with her son, Dan Hawkins, that afternoon, and that she saw her son go toward the bedroom where the deceased and the appellant were arguing:
'Q. All right. What occurred then, Mrs. Elliott?
'A. He turned and walked in the room. And Dan was still at the door and I had worked that day and I was tired and I was doing like this (indicating) over there in the chair, and I heard shots. I heard--I heard her holler first; she said, 'No, no, Teddy; my God, Teddy, no, don't,' or something, in them words, somehow or another, 'No, no, Teddy, don't or 'No, no, Teddy,' or something. And so then she said, 'My God,' and then we heard the shots and went and started running to get in there. And when I went through the door--my son beat me.
'Q. Is that Dan Hawkins?
'A. Danny. And he beat me and he run in--and when I got in the room, well, they were holding--he had hold of the gun and he was bleeding, and Teddy had hold of the bleeding--
'Q. Who was bleeding?
'A. Danny was bleeding. And I stepped back because the bullet had went through my leg, and, you know, went across here. I felt it go across. And I looked down and I seen my daughter and she was laying down and had her head, and her hair was long and it was covered up and I didn't see no blood and I thanked God for that, and I just seen that hole in her leg and I said, 'Thank you--'
'Q. You saw what, Mrs. Elliott?
'A. I saw the hole in her leg where the bullet had entered and that's all I seen. I didn't see no blood, I just seen her laying down, the hair over her face.
'Q. The hole was where, Mrs. Elliott?
'A. In her leg, it was in her leg. And I said--I thought she was all right...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. State
...was abstract despite evidence that he was under the influence of whiskey and cocaine at the time of the crime.); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala.App. 125, 131-32, 298 So.2d 55 (1974) (Evidence was insufficient to sustain plea of insanity and court was justified in instructing jury to that effect de......
-
Crowe v. State
...the trial court on this matter. No constitutional rights of the appellant were abridged because of this one incident. Brodka v. State, 53 Ala.App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974). VI The appellant contends that the Alabama Death Penalty Act is constitutionally defective. He raises a number of issu......
-
Kuenzel v. State
...a right and was "entitled" to be present in court. See also, Crowe v. State, 485 So.2d 351, 363 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala.App. 125, 132, 298 So.2d 55 (1974). At the penalty phase of the trial, the district attorney made the following argument to the jury in "Now something d......
-
Smith v. State
...See Kuenzel; Crowe v. State, 485 So.2d 351, 363 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), rev'd on other grounds, 485 So.2d 373 (Ala.1985); Brodka v. State, 53 Ala.App. 125, 298 So.2d 55 (1974); see also Pierce v. State, 576 So.2d 236 3. The appellant also challenges the following comments by the district attorne......