Hagood v. State
| Decision Date | 26 April 1991 |
| Parties | William Chris HAGOOD and Ricky Martin v. STATE. CR 89-121. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Larry W. Madison, Hartselle, for appellant William Chris Hagood.
James Adams and Wesley M. Lavender, Decatur, for appellant Ricky Martin.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Margaret S. Childers, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellants, William Chris Hagood and Ricky Martin, were indicted for capital murder committed during the course of a robbery. They were found guilty of capital murder as charged in the indictment and were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The state's evidence tended to show that on August 28, 1988, the body of James Lindsey was found on a county road between Decatur and Hartselle, Alabama. The victim had been stabbed three times--once in the back and twice in the chest. Death was caused by a combination of loss of blood and breathing blood into the lungs.
The evidence showed that several weeks earlier, the victim had obtained marijuana from Anthony Simmons. Simmons had known Lindsey for several years but had never previously sold him marijuana. Simmons testified at trial that Lindsey did not pay him for the marijuana he had sold him several weeks prior to his death. He further stated that he had obtained this marijuana from Hagood. Simmons made several attempts to get the money from Lindsey but was unsuccessful. On the day that he was killed, Lindsey had called Simmons to ask if Simmons could get him some more marijuana. Simmons stated that he might be able to, and he asked him if he had the money that he owed him for the marijuana he had sold him previously. Lindsey stated that he would try to get the money.
At approximately 5:00 p.m. on August 28, 1988, Simmons went to Hagood and talked with him about obtaining more marijuana for Lindsey. Ricky Martin, Hagood's brother-in-law, was with Hagood when this discussion took place. Hagood then asked Simmons about paying for the marijuana he had given him previously. Simmons offered to borrow the money, but the appellants said they would get the money out of Lindsey if they had to "whip his ass." They agreed to meet back at Simmons's house at 7:00 p.m. that same evening to talk about the "deal." After Simmons left the appellants, he called Lindsey and told him that he could probably get the marijuana he wanted and that Lindsey should call him back at about 7:00 p.m. that evening.
The appellants arrived at Simmons's house at around 7:00 p.m. that same day. Several people were at Simmons's house when the appellants arrived, so they went outside to talk about the deal. They told Simmons that they had the marijuana. Simmons called Lindsey and told him to meet them behind the Jet Mart convenience store on Highway 31 between Decatur and Hartselle. The three left Simmons's home, Simmons driving his own car and the appellant following in another vehicle. They arrived at the meeting place and parked their cars. The appellants parked on a gravel road behind the Jet Mart convenience store. Simmons then left his car to get Lindsey.
In the meantime, Lindsey had gone to visit a friend, Elbert Clements, to see if he could get the money for the marijuana. Michael Short and Renea Dalton were present when Lindsey arrived at Clements's home. Clements agreed to lend Lindsey $500.00 if Lindsey would pay him $100.00 in interest and if he was paid by the next day. Lindsey agreed to these terms.
Having obtained the money, Lindsey and Clements, who wished to protect his investment, drove to the designated area and waited in front of the Jet Mart. Simmons arrived and took Lindsey to where he had left the appellants. The appellants asked Simmons whether the victim had the money he owed. Simmons replied that he did. The appellants told Simmons that the marijuana was in the trunk of the car. They opened the trunk, and Hagood began fumbling for something in the trunk. He told them that could not find the marijuana. Martin then got inside the car and said that he could not find it in the car either. Simmons walked back to his car to get a cigarette. He heard Lindsey say, "Oh, shit." When he went over to the car that the appellants were driving, he saw the victim lying face up on the ground, making gurgling noises.
The appellants then asked Simmons where the money was. Simmons got the money from the victim and gave it to Martin. Martin handed the money to Hagood. The appellants asked Simmons to help them drag the body away from the car, but he refused. Hagood gave Simmons 150.00 and told him to keep his mouth shut. Simmons, fearing for his life, took the money and went home. He told his wife what had happened.
Meanwhile, Clements was waiting for Lindsey to return to his car. When Lindsey didn't return, Clements called Michael Short, who has been with them earlier in the evening. When Short arrived, he looked for Lindsey, but could not find him. Short then left and started to drive home down a gravel road when he saw a body. It was Lindsey. Short went back to the Jet Mart parking lot where Clements has stayed and they both called the police.
Hagood testified at trial that he went with Simmons and Martin to the area behind the Jet Mart. He said that Martin worked on his car after Simmons left to get Lindsey. This was at approximately 8:30 p.m. When Simmons returned with Lindsey, Simmons and Lindsey approached Martin's car. He testified that Martin and Lindsey started arguing and that Lindsey attacked Hagood with a piece of pipe. Hagood stated that he pulled out a pocket-knife and accidentally, in self-defense, stabbed Lindsey in the back and then twice in the chest. There were several inconsistencies in his testimony.
Hagood was arrested the day after the incident. In his possession were two $100 bills and three $20 bills. Martin was not located for two months. Martin was finally found, through an anonymous tip, in a trailer in Virginia Beach, Virginia. After the police entered the trailer by using a battering ram, appellant Martin said, "Who the hell told you I was here?"
The appellants raise the following issues on appeal.
Hagood initially argues that the trial court erred in not allowing him to individually voir dire the prospective jurors. As this court has held on many occasions, an appellant has no constitutional right to individually voir dire prospective jurors in a capital case. Whether to allow individual voir dire is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See Whisenhant v. State, 555 So.2d 219 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd 555 So.2d 235 (Ala.1989); Hallford v. State, 548 So.2d 526 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), aff'd, 548 So.2d 547 (Ala.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 945, 110 S.Ct. 354, 107 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989); Bell v. State, 475 So.2d 601 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), aff'd, 475 So.2d 609 (Ala.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1038, 106 S.Ct. 607, 88 L.Ed.2d 585 (1985).
In the instant case, the trial court did not allow an individual voir dire, but he split the prospective jurors into groups of 12 so that counsel could question them. As we recently stated in Perry v. State, 586 So.2d 236 (Ala.Cr.App.1990):
"Because '[i]t is within the trial court's discretion as to whether the jury should be qualified in groups,' Morrison v. State, 500 So.2d 36, 52 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), affirmed, 500 So.2d 57 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1007, 107 S.Ct. 1634, 95 L.Ed.2d 207 (1987), the trial court's decision to conduct voir dire in groups of fourteen was within its discretion."
Hagood next contends that the procedure for striking jurors set out in Rule 15.4(h), A.R.Crim.P.Temp.; violates the principle of equal protection. Specifically, he contends that his equal protection rights were violated because the appellants were tried together and each received only 9 strikes and the prosecution received 19. As Judge Tyson, speaking for this court in Sumpter v. State, 480 So.2d 608 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), stated:
" "
480 So.2d at 612, quoting from Holsemback v. State, 443 So.2d 1371, 1377 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), cert. denied, 443 So.2d 1371 (Ala.1984). See also Means v. State, 545 So.2d 100 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), writ quashed, Ex parte Dorsey, 545 So.2d 106 (Ala.1989). This statute is not unconstitutional. See Ward v. State, 484 So.2d 536, 539 (Ala.Cr.App.1985).
Hagood next contends that this case should be reversed because there are 28 instances of "off the record discussions" that are not included in the transcript on appeal. Initially, we note that it is the appellant's duty to make a complete record on appeal. If the appellant wished the transcript to be corrected or supplemented he could have filed a motion pursuant to Rule 10(f), A.R.App.P. We note that a Rule 10(f) motion was filed by both appellants; however, no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. State
...and should be taken only when it is manifestly necessary or when the ends of justice would otherwise be defeated. Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), cert. denied, Martin v. Alabama, 504 U.S. 911, 112 S.Ct. 1943, 118 L.Ed.2d 548 (1992). Moreover, 'the trial judge is allowed ......
-
Sockwell v. State
...pretrial publicity. Whether to allow individual voir dire is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Parker v. State, 587 So.2d 1072 (Ala.Crim.App.1991), after remand, 610 So.2d 1171 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd 610 So.2d 1......
-
Ex parte Scott
...without first, as a condition precedent, having shown that it is necessary for his recollection to be refreshed.'" Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526, 535 (Ala.Cr. App.1991), quoting C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 116.02(6) (3d ed.1977). As to the defendant's claim that Linder did not......
-
Daniels v. State
...presumption against error when the trial court immediately charges the jury to disregard the improper remarks." ' " Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526, 532 (Ala.Cr.App.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 911, 112 S.Ct. 1943, 118 L.Ed.2d 548 We find that in one instance, defense counsel objected, the ......
-
Leading Questions
...1999; Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 634 N.E.2d 124 (Mass. App.Ct. 1994); State v. McCoy, 414 S.E.2d 392 (N.C.App. 1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.App. 1991); People v. Hirschmann , 124 Ill.Dec. 779, 529 N.E.2d 760, 175 Ill.App.3d 150 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1988); United States v. O’Brien,......
-
Leading Questions
...1999; Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 634 N.E.2d 124 (Mass. App.Ct. 1994); State v. McCoy, 414 S.E.2d 392 (N.C.App. 1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.App. 1991); People v. Hirschmann , 124 Ill.Dec. 779, 529 N.E.2d 760, 175 Ill.App.3d 150 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1988); United States v. O’Brien,......
-
Leading Questions
...1999; Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 634 N.E.2d 124 (Mass.App.Ct. 1994); State v. McCoy, 414 S.E.2d 392 (N.C.App. 1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.App. 1991); People v. Hirschmann , 124 Ill.Dec. 779, 529 N.E.2d 760, 175 Ill.App.3d 150 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1988); United States v. O’Brien, ......
-
Leading questions
...App. 1999; Commonwealth v. Caldwell, 634 N.E.2d 124 (Mass.App.Ct. 1994); State v. McCoy, 414 S.E.2d 392 (N.C.App. 1992); Hagood v. State, 588 So.2d 526 (Ala.App. 1991); People v. Hirschmann , 124 Ill.Dec. 779, 529 N.E.2d 760, 175 Ill.App.3d 150 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1988); United States v. O’Br......