Daly v. State
| Decision Date | 05 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 454 |
| Citation | 401 So.2d 274 |
| Parties | Paul Edward DALY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Danny H. Henderson of Henderson & Grace, Huntsville, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Thomas R. Allison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted and tried for murder. A jury found him guilty of manslaughter. The court fixed punishment at imprisonment for ten years, the minimum punishment for manslaughter, in accordance with the criminal code, Code of Ala. 1975, Tit. 13A, effective January 1, 1980.
The indictment charged in material and pertinent part that defendant "did intentionally cause the death of another person, Charles Paul Hart, by shooting him with a pistol, in violation of § 13A-6-2 of the Code of Alabama." Code § 13A-6-2(a)(1) states as one of the three essential hypotheses of murder:
The undisputed evidence, which included testimony of the defendant, showed that the alleged victim was killed by a bullet from defendant's pistol that was in defendant's hand at the time with a middle finger on the trigger. The victim and defendant were facing each other, and the bullet penetrated the front of the head of the victim. The incident occurred in the parking lot of Cher's Lounge on the night of February 22, 1980. Defendant was a customer of the lounge and had drunk some beer. The victim had been in the lounge as a customer but had had an altercation with, and had been ousted by, the doorman, also referred to in the evidence as "a bouncer."
Defendant's testimony was to the effect that the victim was approaching him, threatening to whip him and cut his head off, that he became scared, stumbled, lost his balance and fired. He then became panicky, left hurriedly in his truck, went to Tennessee and returned about three days thereafter. He then surrendered to the authorities.
The case was submitted to the jury as to the express charge of murder, the crime of manslaughter and the crime of criminally negligent homicide, which, according to § 13A-6-1 through § 13A-6-4 of the Criminal Code, now constitute three kinds of unlawful homicide, replacing the theretofore existing crimes of murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree and manslaughter in the second degree.
The only contention of appellant is that "Alabama Code § 13A-2-2(3) is violative of the due process clauses of the Constitution of the United States and of the Constitution of Alabama because it is vague and uncertain as to its meaning." Code § 13A-2-2(3) provides:
In its oral charge, the court included plenary instructions as to murder, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide and made it clear to the jury that it was for the jury to decide the guilt or innocence of the defendant and if he was guilty whether he was guilty of any one of the three kinds of unlawful homicide. In charging upon the subject of manslaughter, the court quoted almost exactly the language of Section 13A-2-2(3), the only exception being that it omitted the phrase "as defined in subdivision (e)(2) of section 13A-3-2" of the last sentence thereof. Furthermore, the court did not instruct the jury as to the definition of voluntary intoxication that is found in subdivision (e)(2) of § 13A-3-2. However, no point seems to be made by appellant to the effect that the trial court should have instructed the jury as to such definition of voluntary intoxication.
We understand that the major thrust of appellant's contention is to the effect that by applying § 13A-2-2(3) to manslaughter, the defendant was deprived of what might otherwise have been a benefit, in the view of the jury, of a finding that defendant was guilty of criminally negligent homicide. There would be considerable force to such contention if the section defining criminally negligent homicide, § 13A-6-4, had not been amended prior to its effective date, and prior to the commission of the alleged crime, by expunging therefrom one of the two kinds of criminally negligent homicide therein defined:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McDaniel v. State
...the deceased was killed in self defense. This charge was properly refused under the evidence presented in this cause. Daly v. State, 401 So.2d 274 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); Rogers v. State, 417 So.2d 241 (Ala.Cr.App.1982) and Quates v. State, 439 So.2d 199 Moreover, the charge as herein tendered c......
-
Quates v. State, 4 Div. 145
...charged on criminally negligent homicide, because he claimed he killed the deceased in self-defense, is without merit. In Daly v. State, 401 So.2d 274 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), the defendant claimed he should have been found guilty of criminally negligent homicide, because he had acted in self-def......