Buttram v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 358 |
| Citation | 57 Ala.App. 422,329 So.2d 111 |
| Parties | Jerry BUTTRAM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
David A. Rains, Fort Payne, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Sarah M. Greenhaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged in an indictment with murder in the first degree of James R. Williams. He pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. He was found guilty of murder in the second degree an sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for twenty years.
No contention is made on this appeal that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. Our review of the record convinces us that it is sufficient. It follows that an extended discussion of the evidence is unnecessary.
It is without dispute that deceased was killed by one, or both, of two bullets fired from a high-powered rifle while in the hands of defendant. An argument had ensued between defendant and Williams while they and others were at the home of defendant's mother. With Williams at the time was one Pete Culpepper. Williams and Culpepper left the house by the front door. Defendant obtained the rifle and went out the back. Defendant testified that Williams had stated 'Ive got something out in the damn car for you.' Defendant met Williams around the corner of the house. Defendant testified that Williams then said, 'I'm going to kill you, you Goddam son-of-a-bitch' and that defendant then fired and hit Williams. Williams then retreated into the yard out of the sight of all except defendant. Defendant followed and went to Williams, where he was on his hands and knees as if he were looking for something in the grass. Defendant testified that Williams tried to pull the gun away from defendant and the gun discharged again. Defendant returned to the house and killed Pete Culpepper with the rifle. He then fled and voluntarily surrendered the next day.
Nine days before the commencement of the trial, defendant's attorney filed a motion stating that in his opinion defendant was then mentally incompetent to understand the proceedings against him or to properly assist in his own defense. The motion further alleged that the attorney had had discussions with many who knew defendant and that on the basis of such discussions the attorney was of the opinion that defendant was insane, that he should not be made to stand trial due to his mental incompetency, that he was without funds to obtain expert testimony with regard to his competency to stand trial and that his plea of insanity could not be properly presented without the order prayed for in the motion. The prayer was as follows:
'WHEREFORE THESE PREMISES CONSIDERED the Defendant, by and through his attorney, prays that this Honorable Court will, pursuant to Title 15, Section 426, et. seq., institute a careful investigation, call a respectable physician and other creditable witnesses, and, if necessary, call a jury, to determine the sanity of the Defendant.'
Before commencement of the trial, defendant's attorney referred to the motion, and the court replied:
'The defendant's motion requesting an examination by a physician is denied.'
Appellant's sole insistence on a reversal of the judgment appealed from is based upon the action or inaction of the trial court relative to its duty as prescribed by Title 15, § 426, Code of Alabama 1940 (Recomp.1958), as follows:
The cited section of the Code of Alabama and Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966) and Pierce v. State, 52 Ala.App. 422, 293 So.2d 483, cert. quashed 292 Ala. 745, 293 So.2d 489, have established standards we are required to follow to safeguard the constitutional right of a defendant to prevent his being tried for a criminal offense while he is incompetent to stand trial.
There was testimony pro and con on the question of defendant's insanity. There is little, if any, evidence to indicate that defendant's mental condition at the time of trial was different from what it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. State
...than discretionary, and the refusal of the trial court to submit this issue to the jury is reviewable". See also Buttrum v. State, 57 Ala.App. 422, 329 So.2d 111 (1975). However, in this case, the trial judge did not err or abuse his discretion in failing to submit to a jury the issue of th......
-
Jones v. State
...The court accepted the nol pros; the record shows: 'You stand charged now in these indictments (see Jones (v. State), 8 Div. 776 (57 Ala.App. ---, 329 So.2d 111)) with the burglary counts being stricken * * This is sufficient to support a minute entry under Code 1940, T. 15, § 257. However,......
-
Burnett v. State
...(1963); Gutierrez v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 355 So.2d 1160 (1977); Baldwin v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 940 (1977); and Buttram v. State, 57 Ala.App. 422, 329 So.2d 111, affirmed 57 Ala.App. 425, 329 So.2d 114, cert. denied 295 Ala. ----, 329 So.2d 116, we determine that the instant cause ......
-
Buttram v. State
...So.2d 483, writ quashed, 292 Ala. 745, 293 So.2d 489, judgment vacated after remand, 57 Ala.App., 633, 330 So.2d 615; Buttram v. State, 57 Ala.App. 422, 329 So.2d 111, after remand, 57 Ala.App. 425, 329 So.2d 114, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 394, 329 So.2d 116. In Buttram, appellant is the same ......