Chapman v. State
| Decision Date | 10 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | CR–14–0037. |
| Parties | Karla Gaye CHAPMAN v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alabama Supreme Court 1141397.
Ronald Smith, Huntsville, for appellant.
Luther Strange, atty. gen., and Michael G. Dean, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
, Judge.
The appellant, Karla Gaye Chapman, was convicted of murder, a violation of § 13A–6–2, Ala.Code 1975
. The circuit court sentenced Chapman to 35 years' imprisonment and ordered her to pay a $10,000 fine, $500 to the crime victims compensation fund, and court costs.
The record indicates the following pertinent facts. In 2009, Jonathan Elliff and Chapman got married; they began having difficulties in the marriage shortly afterward. Tonya Kilmeyer testified that she was friends with Chapman and that she frequently spoke with her in the time leading up to Elliff's death. According to Kilmeyer, Chapman was angry at Elliff because Elliff sold Chapman's vehicle for $800 and refused to give Chapman any of the money. Chapman was also angry because Elliff would only loan—not give—her $100 so that she could send it to her adult son for his birthday.
On May 28, 2010, Kilmeyer and her fiancé, Tracy Warden, gathered at Chapman and Elliff's house for a small party. Soon after Kilmeyer and Warden arrived, Elliff left to get pills. Elliff returned to the party and gave two Lortab
pills to Warden, who then gave one to Kilmeyer.
A few hours into the party, Chapman and Elliff began arguing over money from the sale of Elliff's vehicle and other financial matters. According to Kilmeyer, Elliff did not want to argue, but Chapman kept arguing. Elliff and Chapman argued throughout the house. Eventually, the argument escalated and Elliff stated that he was going to leave the home and leave Chapman. Elliff went into his bedroom and gathered some clothes to take with him. However, Elliff decided that he wanted to eat before he left so he placed a lasagna casserole in the oven. According to Kilmeyer, Chapman grabbed the lasagna out of the oven and threw it out the front door of the house. Afterward, Chapman grabbed a knife, told Elliff to leave, and then stabbed the knife into the kitchen countertop. At that point, Warden wanted to leave, and Kilmeyer offered to let either Elliff or Chapman stay at her house because Kilmeyer believed the couple needed to be apart. Elliff grabbed his wallet and keys, then left the residence.
After Elliff left, Chapman began arguing with Kilmeyer over bills, money, and the fact that Kilmeyer “had a good man.” (R. 151.) Chapman escalated the argument by bringing up the fact that Kilmeyer had been arrested for involvement with methamphetamine. Chapman and Kilmeyer made peace for a short time before starting to argue again. At that point, Kilmeyer got into her car and left. After backing down the driveway, Kilmeyer turned around because she had left Warden at the house. When she returned, she told Chapman “[t]hat's why Jonathan left, and that's why I am leaving.” (R. 153.) Chapman then grabbed Kilmeyer's shirt, ripping it. Kilmeyer hit Chapman and then drove away without Warden. Chapman brought Warden home approximately 30 minutes later.
Sometime after midnight, Elliff returned home. Although the details are disputed, Elliff was stabbed with a knife. Afterward, both Chapman and Elliff telephoned 911 for emergency assistance.
At around 1:30 or 2:00 a.m., Greg Free, a sergeant with the Madison County Sheriff's Office, arrived at the scene and saw Chapman standing outside and Elliff lying on the porch in a pool of blood. Sgt. Free and another officer went to Elliff immediately and began to treat Elliff's injuries. Sgt. Free testified that Elliff was in a lot of pain, that he had a large stab wound
to his abdomen, and that he was bleeding profusely. There was a large pool of blood around Elliff, which soaked Sgt. Free's pants when he knelt down. Elliff had difficulty breathing and said that it hurt to talk. Sgt. Free testified that Elliff was pale, in dire need of medical help, and near death. When Sgt. Free asked Elliff who had stabbed him, Elliff responded that his wife, Karla, had stabbed him when he was “[l]aying down on the couch.” (R. 179.)
Paramedics arrived shortly afterward and took over Elliff's medical care. Sgt. Free then walked inside the residence and observed a large pool of blood next to the sofa. The blood trail led throughout the house and crossed over itself several times. In the kitchen, Sgt. Free saw a butcher's knife that had been “freshly washed” but that contained red beads of what appeared to be blood. (R. 181.) Sgt. Free contacted Investigator Roland Campos and ordered Chapman transported to the police station so that Investigator Campos could interview her.
Investigator Campos testified that around 3:30 a.m. he met Chapman at the police station and that she appeared to be upset and crying. Although Chapman smelled like “old alcohol,” she did not appear to be intoxicated. Chapman was advised of her Miranda1 rights and subsequently gave a statement to Campos.
In her statement, Chapman told Investigator Campos about her monetary disputes with Elliff, the party that evening, and her fight with Elliff at the party. Chapman stated that after everyone had left the house, she changed clothes and went to sleep on the couch. According to Chapman, the next thing she remembered was Elliff standing over her and accusing her of having another man in the house. Chapman said that Elliff then began searching the house and that the next thing she knew, Elliff was walking toward the front door, groaning, and holding his stomach. When Chapman went over to see Elliff, she saw blood everywhere. Chapman said that both she and Elliff telephoned 911 afterwards.
When asked how Elliff got stabbed, Chapman said that she did not know but suggested that he did it to himself. At one point during the questioning, Chapman told investigators that Elliff had punched her and gave her a fat lip. Investigators then photographed Chapman's face in addition to a scratch on her chest, a scratch on her neck, and a sharp cut on her right hand.
After Elliff died on the following morning, Investigator Campos interviewed Chapman for a second time. Chapman was advised of her Miranda rights for a second time and proceeded to give a second statement.
Dr. Emily Ward, a physician with a speciality in forensic pathology, performed an autopsy on Elliff. Dr. Ward testified that the knife went at least three inches inside Elliff's abdominal wall and pierced his liver and a vena cava. Elliff suffered extreme blood loss from the injury and died as a result of the stab wound
. Dr. Ward also testified that Elliff had a bruise on the left side of his face and a freshly busted lip.
Chapman testified in her own defense at trial. According to Chapman, on May 29, 2010, she got off work and picked up some beers on her way home. At home, she smoked some marijuana and drank beer while she waited on her husband and friends to arrive for a small party. Chapman admitted that she and Elliff got into an argument that resulted in Elliff's leaving, but she denied ever pointing the knife at anyone or stabbing it into the kitchen countertop. Chapman testified that, after she took Warden to his house that night, she returned home and went to sleep on the couch. Chapman said that when she woke up, Elliff was standing over her. Elliff accused Chapman of having another man in the house and proceeded to search the house. Chapman indicated that this is how Elliff would behave whenever he used crack/cocaine.2
According to Chapman, she and Elliff then got into an argument, which resulted in his slamming her to the ground. Chapman testified that Elliff then held a knife to her throat and said that he was going to kill her. Chapman said that she was able to push Elliff off her and make him drop the knife. Chapman then grabbed the knife and stabbed him in self-defense. Chapman stated that at first she did not realize that she had stabbed Elliff. Chapman also testified that she did not remember seeing blood until Elliff sat down on the porch. Chapman said that she did not tell Investigator Campos or anyone else this story because she might have been “in a state of shock” after the stabbing. (R. 380.)
After both sides rested and the circuit court instructed the jury on the applicable principles of law, the jury found Chapman guilty of murder. This appeal followed.
Chapman contends that the circuit court erred when it allowed five police officers to testify that Elliff had made several domestic-violence complaints to police during the 12 months preceding his death. Specifically, Chapman contends that the evidence concerning the incidents of domestic violence was inadmissible because, she says, it was hearsay and was prohibited under Rule 404(b), Ala. R. Evid
., for the following reasons: (1) the evidence was not plain, clear, and conclusive; (2) the evidence was not admissible to show intent; (3) the evidence was not admissible to show motive; (4) the evidence was not admissible under the “initial aggressor exception”; (5) the evidence was offered for the improper purpose of showing Chapman's bad character and her propensity to commit murder; and (6) the probative value of the bad acts was substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice of their admission.
The record indicates that before trial the State gave Chapman notice that it planned to introduce Rule 404(b)
evidence that she had threatened to stab a previous boyfriend and that she had stabbed the kitchen countertop when she made the threat; that she had previously been arrested for domestic violence involving Elliff on May 25, 2009; that, in the year leading up to Elliff's death, police officers had received five separate telephone calls from Elliff in which he reported Chapman for domestic violence; and that Chapman had previously cut an ex-husband's throat in a domestic-violence assault.3
On...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Floyd v. State
...(Tenn. 1884).’" State v. Glebock, 616 S.W.2d 897, 905–06 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1981)." 962 So. 2d at 282. See also Chapman v. State, 196 So. 3d 322, 330-31 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) ; and Hulsey v. State, 866 So. 2d 1180, 1188-91 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). We recognize that, generally, evidence of co......
-
Cartwright v. State
...judgment of acquittal does not constitute error. McConnell v. State, 429 So. 2d 662 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983)." ’ " Chapman v. State, 196 So. 3d 322, 335 (Ala. Crim. App. 2015) (quoting Gavin v. State, 891 So. 2d 907, 974 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003), quoting in turn Ward v. State, 610 So. 2d 1190, ......
-
Latham v. State
... ... crimes has almost an irreversible impact upon the minds of ... the jurors.'" Ex parte Cofer , 440 So.2d ... 1121, 1123 (Ala. 1983) (quoting C. Gamble, McElroy's ... Alabama Evidence § 69.01(1) (3d ed. 1977)). See ... also Chapman v. State , 196 So.3d 322, 331 ... (Ala.Crim.App.2015) ("A trial judge should exclude ... evidence falling within one of the exceptions only if the ... probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of ... unfair prejudice." (citing Ex parte Register , ... ...
-
Bolling v. State
..."O'Cain v. State, 586 So.2d 34, 37 (Ala.Crim.App.1991) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)." Chapman v. State, 196 So.3d 322, 334 (Ala.Crim.App.2015) (emphasis added). In this case, when police officers found Foster lying in the street, he had suffered a gunshot wound to his he......