Godbolt v. State, 6 Div. 858
Decision Date | 02 November 1982 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 858 |
Citation | 429 So.2d 1131 |
Parties | Jerry Steven GODBOLT v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Mike McCormick, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Bill North and Ed Carnes, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted under § 13A-5-31(a)(2), Code 1975, for robbery or attempts thereof during which the victim was intentionally caused by the appellant to be killed. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the capital offense charged in the indictment. After a hearing on aggravating circumstances, the jury returned a verdict fixing the appellant's sentence at death. Subsequently the trial court weighed the aggravating and mitigating circumstances pursuant to § 13A-5-33, Code 1975, and sentenced the appellant to life without parole.
The sufficiency of the evidence not having been raised, we detail only those facts necessary to the resolution of the issues on appeal.
The bodies of the victims Myra Faye Tucker and her husband were discovered on an old mining road in Jefferson County, Alabama, on January 17, 1981. Both of them had received fatal wounds from shotgun blasts. Found inside the blouse of Mrs. Tucker was a crumpled telephone bill bearing the name "Godbolt." Although the temperature was only 34? F., Mrs. Tucker was without shoes when found. Three spent shotgun shells were also found at the scene.
The appellant's victim, under the indictment charging violation of § 13A-5-31(a)(2), was Mrs. Tucker; she was robbed as well as killed. The autopsy on Mrs. Tucker indicated the shotgun muzzle had been forty-eight inches or closer to her when the shot was fired. Mrs. Tucker received injuries to her chest, hip, and neck. As well, further examination indicated the presence of sperm in Mrs. Tucker's vagina, rectum, and oral cavity.
The autopsy of Mr. Tucker indicated he had received a fatal shotgun wound in the back, as well as blunt trauma injuries to the head.
A shotgun found in the front yard of the home of appellant's parents on January 23, 1981, was tested and proved to be the same weapon which fired the shells found at the scene of the murders.
The known fingerprints of appellant were compared with a latent print lifted from the trunk of the Tucker automobile. The test revealed that the prints were identical.
Appellant was arrested on January 21, 1981. After again having been read his Miranda rights on January 23, 1981, appellant waived his rights and made a taped statement. Appellant stated that on Friday night, January 16, 1981, he had placed his shotgun, along with three shotgun shells, in Wayne Agee's automobile. Sometime later that night, appellant left a party he had attended, leaving with Wayne Agee. Along with appellant and Agee was one Carnell "Boo" Jackson.
The three black men were riding in Agee's automobile when they discovered they were low on both gasoline and money. At Boo's suggestion, the three men took out appellant's shotgun and lay in wait outside a bar as a means of obtaining money.
Appellant stated that when Mr. and Mrs. Tucker left the bar to go to their automobile, Boo pointed the white couple out and told appellant to go ask them for a pair of jumper cables. As appellant asked for the cables, Boo approached with the shotgun. Boo got in on the passenger side, where Mrs. Tucker was sitting, and got into the back seat. Mr. Tucker was placed in the back seat and appellant got into the driver's seat. Wayne Agee remained in his vehicle, and appellant followed him in the Tuckers' automobile.
Appellant stated that when he initially approached the couple, it was his plan, and the plan of his two companions, to kidnap the couple and take their vehicle.
After driving for a while, they took $10.00 from Mrs. Tucker and gave it to Agee for gasoline. They later placed Mr. Tucker in the trunk of his own automobile and took Mrs. Tucker into appellant's apartment. At this point, appellant had given the shotgun shells to Boo, who had then loaded the shotgun.
Upon entering the apartment, Mrs. Tucker asked to use the bathroom. Appellant entered the bathroom with her and forced her to perform fellatio on him. After being allowed to drink some water, Mrs. Tucker was taken into the bedroom by Boo, who removed her clothes and had sex with her. Appellant went outside to watch the automobile, and Agee went inside and joined Boo in the bedroom. After the two men "finished," Boo came out, opened the trunk, and took Mr. Tucker's rings and wallet.
When Boo returned to the apartment, Agee and Mrs. Tucker had redressed. Although it was cold winter weather, Boo refused to let Mrs. Tucker put her shoes back on because "he was going to give them to his lady."
They all returned to the two vehicles and drove, at Boo's directions, to the old mine road. The following then occurred, as related by appellant in his taped statement:
The following morning, the men took the Tuckers' automobile to a spot behind a local high school, stripped it of its tires, and then set it on fire.
At the time this incident took place, appellant was 21 years old, Carnell "Boo" Jackson was 17, and Wayne Agee was 19.
Sergeant J.E. Gay testified that Jackson admitted actually firing the fatal shots. However, Jackson told him it was the older appellant who masterminded the plan.
Appellant testified at trial and altered his statement to say the Tuckers had attempted to sell them marijuana after they had accosted the couple. Also, he stated he was attempting to unload the shotgun when it went off accidentally. He stated Mrs. Tucker was friendly the whole time, and had stated she "liked the black men, she had had sex with them before." As well, he stated the Tuckers went with them "voluntarily" after they "saw the gun."
On rebuttal, State's witness Officer Greg Bearden testified that no traces of marijuana were found in the Tuckers' automobile after a thorough search of the same.
Appellant contends that the statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arthur v. State
...Ala.Law 456, 468 (1981). See also Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782, 102 S.Ct. 3368, 73 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1982), but see Godbolt v. State, 429 So.2d 1131, 1134 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), holding that Enmund is inapplicable to a defendant who does not receive the death penalty. However, a non-triggerman c......
-
Arthur v. State, 8 Div. 873
...or gruesome. Craft v. State, 402 So.2d 1135 (Ala.Cr.App.1981); McKee v. State, 33 Ala.App. 171, 31 So.2d 656 (1947); Godbolt v. State, 429 So.2d 1131 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). The photographs introduced here revealed the location of the gunshot wound, a relevant, material fact and corroborate othe......
-
Bankhead v. State
...at 141. See also Hutto v. State, 465 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Jones v. State, 439 So.2d 776 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Godbolt v. State, 429 So.2d 1131 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). This rule of law applies not only to photographs, but to photographic slides as well. Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.C......
-
Woods v. State
...the evidence which provides a reasonable theory supportive of the charge. Beck v. State, 396 So.2d 645 (Ala. 1980)." Godbolt v. State, 429 So.2d 1131, 1134 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). Also, a trial judge court has great discretion in formulating its jury charge. Ingram v. State, 779 So.2d 1225 (Ala.......