Ellenburg v. State

Decision Date15 November 1977
Docket Number6 Div. 529
Citation353 So.2d 810
PartiesBobby Joe ELLENBURG v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

H. C. Wiley, Jr., and Philip A. Laird of Elliott, Laird & Wiley, Jasper, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and John B. Rucker, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

TYSON, Presiding Judge.

Bobby Joe Ellenburg was charged by indictment with murder in the first degree. The appellant entered pleas of not guilty by reason of self-defense, by reason of temporary insanity, and by reason of insanity. The jury found the appellant guilty of murder in the second degree and fixed his punishment at twenty years in the penitentiary. The trial court then entered judgment in accordance with this verdict.

Patsy Holley testified that she was the daughter of the deceased, Clyde D. Morton. Holley identified State's Exhibit "B" as a work shirt belonging to the deceased.

Paul Ellenburg testified that he was appellant's brother. Ellenburg stated that on May 16, 1976, around 9:00 a.m., the appellant and his wife came to his home. According to Ellenburg, he and the appellant drank wine and beer until around 11:30 a.m., at which time the two of them left and went into the woods where they drank a half case of beer. Around 2:30 p.m., Ellenburg testified the two of them left and drove to appellant's mother's home. On the way, according to Ellenburg, they picked up the deceased, Clyde Morton. When the three of them arrived at appellant's mother's home, Ellenburg testified, he went inside, got a drink of water, and the three of them drove over to see a bootlegger where they purchased some whiskey. The appellant and Morton, according to Ellenburg, drank the whiskey.

While the three of them were driving around in appellant's car, Ellenburg testified, the appellant accused Morton of throwing his shoe out the car window. According to Ellenburg, the appellant called Morton a liar and stopped the car. The appellant and Morton, Ellenburg stated, got out of the car and Morton knocked appellant to the ground. The appellant got up, according to Ellenburg, grabbed Morton by the hair and knocked Morton to the ground. Next, the following occurred (R. pp. 341-343):

"A. He said, 'I am going to hurt him and hurt him bad.'

"Q. He said, 'I am going to hurt him and hurt him bad.'

"A. Yes.

"Q. All right. When he was . . . talking about kicking him with his feet, did Bobby Joe have shoes on or off?

"A. No, sir, he was barefooted.

"Q. Will you show to the jury how he was kicking or stomping?

"A. He just had his foot up like that.

(Witness demonstrates)

"Q. Had his foot up like this stomping?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. And, at that time was Clyde Morton laying on his stomach?

"A. Yes, sir.

"Q. Where was he stomping him at?

"A. Below the hips.

"Q. Was he stomping him on his back also?

"A. Yes.

"Q. Was this before or after you told him, 'You are going to hurt him'?

"A. That was after.

"Q. I will ask you if while the fight was going on if you observed anyone come by there?

"A. That Stillwell boy come by there.

"Q. All right. Did you hear a conversation between Bobby Joe and stillwell?

"A. Bobby told him to get on down the road and stay out of it.

"Q. Tell the jury to the best of your judgment exactly what was said.

"A. He told him to 'get his butt in that or get his ass in that truck and get on down the road.'

"Q. And, what did Mr. Stillwell do when he told him that?

"A. He got in his van truck and left.

"Q. All right. During the scuffle that took place, did you stay in the car or outside the car?

"A. In the car.

"Q. Did Bobby Joe later return to the car that you were in?

"A. Yes.

"Q. All right. Tell this jury if you will what he said to you when he got back in the car.

"A. He said, 'Well, I took his clothes. I got them one leg at a time and it didn't cost me a dime.'

"Q. What, if anything else, did he tell you?

"A. He said, 'I guess I've got him.'

"Q. 'I guess I've got him.' Did he have an occasion to make a statement to you in regard to your mouth?

"A. No, sir.

"Q. Did he have occasion to make a statement to you about keeping your mouth shut?

"A. Yes, sir. He told me to keep my mouth shut and stay in the car.

"Q. And, did you follow those instructions?

"A. Yes, sir, that is what I did.

"Q. You mentioned that he said . . . What is that again? 'I've got his pants one leg at a time and they didn't cost me a dime.'

"A. Yeah.

"Q. When he returned to the car, what if anything did he have in his hand?

"A. He just had the clothes rolled up in a ball.

"Q. Did you have occasion to observe those clothes?

"A. No.

"Q. Did you see the clothes at any time?

"A. I just seen the bundle.

"Q. What, if anything, did he do with that bundle of clothes?

"A. Threw them in the back seat of the car.

"Q. What, if anything, did he do after he threw them in the back seat of the car?

"A. He just got in the car and that is when we left from up there.

"Q. Who was driving when you left?

"A. Bobby was.

"Q. All right. Where did he drive to from the scene where the scuffle occurred?

"A. Down to my sister, Mary's. Mary Logan's.

"Q. Did you say anything to him while you were driving down there?

"A. No.

"Q. Did he say anything to you?

"A. No. He just said, 'I guess I got him.' "

After leaving Mary Logan's house, Ellenburg testified, he and the appellant drove over to Venon Lawson's house. According to Ellenburg, the appellant took the deceased's clothes inside Lawson's house and told Lawson and his family that he must have killed Morton. The appellant and Ellenburg then left and went to pick up appellant's wife at a friend's home. After picking up Ellenburg's wife, Ellenburg testified, they drove to his (Ellenburg's) home. As they were entering the driveway, Ellenburg stated, the police drove up and the appellant ran. Ellenburg testified that appellant's knuckles on his right hand were very swollen.

James M. Buttram of the State of Alabama, Department of Toxicology, testified that he performed an autopsy on Clyde D. Morton. Buttram stated that the autopsy revealed significant injuries, such as a fractured hyoid bone, fractured ribs, cuts and abrasions, hemorrhages to the brain, and a laceration of the liver. Buttram testified that the cause of death was attributable to multiple blunt force damage to the body (i. e., foot or fist). Buttram stated that both the laceration to the liver and the damage to the neck region were potentially fatal wounds.

Donnie Richards testified that on March 16, 1976, around 10:00 or 11:00 a.m., George Rainey, Venon Lawson, Billy Loftin, Gene Pearson, and he met the appellant and Ellenburg at Lawson's house. Richards stated the appellant and Ellenburg left, but returned late that evening. The appellant, Richards testified, came in with a bundle of clothes in his arms which Richards identified as State's Exhibit "B." Appellant, according to Richards, stated that he didn't know whether or not he had killed Morton. Richards testified that appellant exhibited his hand to him, pointing out the fact that it was very swollen. During the examination of Richards, the following occurred (Vol. III, R. p. 436):

"Q. Would you face the jury, please. Would you tell this Jury and this Court what, if anything, you said to Bobby Joe Ellenburg that night after he showed you his hand?

"A. I asked him did he know what could happen to him for killing him.

"Q. You said, 'Do you know what will happen to you for killing him?'

"A. Yeah.

"Q. Will you tell the Ladies and Gentlemen of this Jury what he said when you said, 'Do you know what will happen to you for killing him.'

"A. He said he wasn't worried about it that he would play crazy and get out of it."

Frank Cole, Deputy Sheriff of Walker County, testified that he found the deceased's body, nude, in a wooded area. Cole stated that he drove over to Paul Ellenburg's house and saw an automobile with three occupants inside backing out of the driveway. Cole told the occupants to place their hands on the dashboard, which Paul Ellenburg and his wife did, but the appellant ran. Deputy Sheriff Cole stated that appellant was apprehended approximately twenty-five minutes later.

Charles Binkley of the Walker County Sheriff's Department testified that he read the appellant his Miranda rights, and that the appellant stated that he understood them. Binkley stated that the appellant also signed a voluntary statement form after which he made a written confession, attaching his signature thereto. The trial court ruled that the written confession was inadmissible due to the fact that Binkley could not remember whether or not he read the statement back to appellant, word for word, before the appellant signed his name thereto.

Dr. Annette Brodsky, Associate Professor with the Department of Psychology at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, testified that she was familiar with a disease known as psychomotor epilepsy or temporal lobe epilepsy. Dr. Brodsky stated that the cause of the disease can be traced to some type of organic brain damage or a blow to the head. According to Dr. Brodsky, the disease can cause a person to pass out and not be aware of his actions upon recovery. Dr. Brodsky testified that she was familiar with hypoglycemia. According to Dr. Brodsky, hypoglycemia is a medical term used to describe someone with an abnormally low blood sugar level. Dr. Brodsky testified that hypoglycemia could trigger a psychomotor epileptic attack, resulting in violent conduct. Dr. Brodsky stated that she could not unequivocally state that appellant was suffering from an epileptic condition. On cross-examination Dr. Brodsky indicated that there were "some signs of psychomotor epilepsy." Dr. Joseph Wooddial, Psychiatrist at Bryce Hospital, testified that he agreed with the testimony given by Dr. Brodsky. Also, according to Dr. Wooddial, over fifty per cent of the inmates serving sentences in state institutions are suffering from hypoglycemia. In his direct testimony, Dr....

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Carpenter v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 20 January 1981
    ...upon an undisputed matter. Hines v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 365 So.2d 320, cert. denied, Ala., 365 So.2d 322 (1978); Ellenburg v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 353 So.2d 810 (1977). The fact that a photograph is gruesome and ghastly is no reason for excluding it, if relevant, even if the photograph may t......
  • Ellis v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 11 May 1990
    ...the body of a deceased victim are admissible even though they are cumulative evidence based upon an undisputed matter. Ellenburg v. State, 353 So.2d 810 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). The fact that a photograph is gruesome and ghastly is no reason for excluding it, if relevant, even if the photograph m......
  • Kinder v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 9 December 1986
    ...the body of a deceased victim are admissible even though they are cumulative evidence based upon an undisputed matter. Ellenburg v. State, 353 So.2d 810 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). The fact that a photograph is gruesome and ghastly is no reason for excluding it, if relevant, even if the photograph m......
  • Glenn v. State, 6 Div. 282
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 7 October 1980
    ...harmless. Kennedy v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 373 So.2d 1274 (1979); Brown v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 366 So.2d 334 (1978); Ellenburg v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 353 So.2d 810 (1977). V During the direct examination of W. G. Parnham, a witness for appellant, counsel for appellant attempted to develop a l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT