Hayes v. State, 6 Div. 2
| Decision Date | 25 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 2 |
| Citation | 395 So.2d 127 |
| Parties | James Michael HAYES, Alias, v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert F. Prince, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and J. Thomas Leverette, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted and convicted for the first degree murder of eighteen year old Regina Carol Quarles by strangling her. In accordance with the jury's verdict, the trial court fixed his punishment at life imprisonment in the state penitentiary. After sentencing, appellant gave oral notice of appeal and his motion for new trial was subsequently overruled.
Prior to his conviction in the case sub judice, appellant pled guilty to a two count indictment returned by the Tuscaloosa Grand Jury charging assault with intent to murder and assault with intent to ravish one Sherry Rumsey (Case No. CC-78-461, Tuscaloosa County Circuit Court). Appellant was sentenced to twenty years in the penitentiary. In addition, appellant was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to murder one Dena Fair and received an additional twenty year sentence. His conviction in that case was affirmed by this court in Hayes v. State, 384 So.2d 623 (Ala.Cr.App.), writ quashed, 384 So.2d 627 (Ala.1980). Both of appellant's prior convictions involved stranglehold attacks on female companions late at night in a one-to-one encounter. See the facts in Hayes, supra.
The crux of this appeal concerns the sufficiency of the State's evidence. Because of the number of State witnesses and the complexity of their testimony the facts of this case are necessarily involved.
The State called as its first witness in the instant case Dr. Henry Santina, a pathologist with the Department of Forensic Sciences. Dr. Santina performed an autopsy of the deceased on August 28, 1978 at the scene where the body was found and determined the cause of death to be strangulation. It was established that the deceased had been dead between twenty-four and eighty hours. Dr. Santina found a brassiere tied around the victim's neck. He also found a bracelet and three rings on the victim's body, but did not find any earrings. He did not observe any tears in the victim's ears. Dr. Santina could not determine whether the deceased had been raped; "there was no evidence of seminal fluid" (R.p. 591).
William H. Landrum, a forensic serologist with the Department of Forensic sciences, testified that he received certain items from Dr. John McDuffie, a criminalist in Tuscaloosa. Mr. Landrum examined vaginal fluid from the victim and his test results for the presence of spermatozoa and semen were negative. "(T)he skin tissue from the vaginal area had undergone a high degree of decomposition; therefore, it is my opinion that no semen would have been detected if it had been there." (R.p. 615)
Mr. Landrum also examined certain brown stains collected from inside the car appellant was driving the night the deceased disappeared. The brown stains were marked for identification as State's exhibits 12 through 18. Tests revealed that all the stains were either group B, human blood in origin or that their origin as human blood or animal blood could not be conclusively determined. Two pieces of fingernail were also collected from appellant's automobile and they were group B in origin as well. Mr. Landrum stated that the fingernail and tissue samples from the deceased were consistent with group O. The deceased's fingernail samples were not recovered from appellant's automobile, nor were any of the stains inside the vehicle consistent with group O.
Sharon Phillips, eighteen years of age, testified that she and her twin sister, Karen, were best friends with the deceased. Sharon testified that the deceased came to her house in Ralph at approximately 8:00 p. m. on Friday, August 25, 1978, to borrow a rust colored blouse and a black vest. Sharon, Karen and the deceased had plans to go to the Super Market Disco later that night. The deceased went home and came back to the Phillipses' house around 9:30 p. m. The three girls departed for the Super Market at approximately 10:00 p. m. in the Phillipses' automobile. The deceased left her car at the Phillipses' where she planned to spend the night. The three arrived at the Super Market around 10:30 p. m.
During the evening Sharon saw the deceased dancing with Cary Cockrell, a high school friend, and the appellant whom she had never seen before. "That's all I saw her dance with." (R.p. 643) Sharon first saw the deceased dancing with the appellant after midnight and last saw them dancing together about 1:30 a. m. on August 26, 1978. "I was dancing on the floor right beside them, then I walked off after the song ended, I walked off the floor and sat on the stools and Regina and this guy danced the next dance.... I got a good look when I was dancing and I saw him again when I was sitting on the stool. (R.p. 645, 647) Sharon identified the shirt appellant was wearing on the night in question. The last time Sharon saw the appellant he was on the dance floor with the deceased.
Sharon, Karen and the deceased decided to leave at approximately 1:45 a. m. "We all left the Super Market together and went out the door" (R.p. 648). It had been "about fifteen minutes" since Sharon had last seen appellant on the dance floor with the deceased.
Bubba Bridges, whom Sharon had met that evening, walked with the three girls to their car. (R.p. 650). Over hearsay objections by defense counsel Sharon was permitted to testify that the deceased got out of the car and said, (R.p. 653). The State contended that the deceased's statements were part of the res gestae and were also a dying declaration.
Sharon last saw the deceased walk back toward the Super Market. Sharon stated that "we waited about ten minutes, then we rode around the parking lot looking for her, and when we didn't see her, we went on" (R.p. 654). Sharon testified that the deceased "had blue jeans on and rust shirt and a black vest" (R.p. 655). Sharon did not know what kind of vehicle the deceased left in. Sharon stated she was driving a white Grand Prix with a green vinyl top.
On cross-examination, Sharon testified that the statement the deceased had made, "If he pulls off on the side of the road you all know what to do," was made in a "joking manner" (R.p. 656). She didn't know whether the deceased meant for her "to stop or go on" (R.p. 656). Sharon stated that she had two drinks at the Super Market and that there were around two hundred people there that night. She further stated that the appellant had "medium-length brown hair and a mustache" (R.p. 658).
On re-direct Sharon testified that she had also identified appellant from photographs given her by police officers. "(T)hey gave me a stack of pictures and I just went through them and identified him" (R.p. 662).
Karen Phillips' testimony was essentially the same as her sister's. Karen saw the deceased dancing with "Cary Crawford 1 and a guy I didn't know" (R.p. 666). Karen described the guy she didn't know as being "dark headed" and having a mustache. "He had blue jeans on" and "looked nice" (R.p. 668). Karen testified that at 1:45 a. m. (R.p. 669).
Again, over hearsay objections by defense counsel, Karen was permitted to testify that the deceased made the following statements from the front seat of the Phillipses' car: (R.p. 673, 674). Karen testified, without objection, that she and the deceased knew Cary Crawford very well on a first name basis, but that her words had been, "Did you see the guy I was dancing with? " (R.p. 673) The State contended once again that the deceased's statements were part of the res gestae and were also a dying declaration. To Karen's knowledge Cary Crawford had been the deceased's only other dancing partner at the Super Market besides the nice looking "dark headed guy with a mustache" (R.p. 666).
Karen then testified without objection that the deceased "got out of the car and when she got out, she said, 'I've got a ride home' she said, 'I'll follow you all' and as she was walking off, she said, 'You all know what to do if he pulls off' " (R.p. 675). Karen last saw the deceased walking back toward the Super Market.
On cross-examination, Karen stated that she didn't observe the deceased's every movement at the Super Market, that the deceased could have talked and danced with several persons. Karen testified that she didn't know with whom the deceased left the Super Market and that she could not say that the person she saw the deceased dancing with was the appellant. Karen stated that she and Sharon rode home alone.
Edie Garrison next took the stand on behalf of the State and testified that she had known the appellant for about three years and the deceased for two years. She made a positive identification of the appellant in court. Ms. Garrison stated that she arrived at the Super Market "about nine thirty or ten" on August 25, 1978 and saw the appellant and the deceased dancing between 10:00 p. m. and 11:30 p. m. when she left. She testified that on three or four occasions she, too, danced with the appellant during the night.
Vickie Windham testified that she had known the appellant for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yarber v. State
...27 So.2d 818 (1946); Cumbo v. State, 368 So.2d 871 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 877 (Ala.1979). See also Hayes v. State, 395 So.2d 127 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied, 395 So.2d 150 (Ala.1981), where the deceased was seen dancing with the defendant some fifteen minutes before ......
-
Boggan v. State
...to determine and they may properly consider conflicting statements as indicating consciousness of guilt. Cumbo v. State, supra; Hayes v. State, 395 So.2d 127 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 395 So.2d 150 (Ala.1981). We find no error in the jury's verdict of The judgment of the trial court is......
-
Moore v. State
...evidence. Jones v. State, supra; Yarbrough v. State, supra; Mitchell v. State, 395 So.2d 124 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), cert. denied, 395 So.2d 127 (Ala.1981); Green v. State, supra; McHellen v. State, supra; Henderson v. State, 347 So.2d 540 (Ala.Crim.App.), writ quashed, 347 So.2d 543 (Ala.1977......
-
White v. State
...jury may properly consider conflicting statements as indicating a consciousness of guilt." Cumbo, 368 So.2d at 876; Hayes v. State, 395 So.2d 127, 147 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied, Ex parte Hayes, 395 So.2d 150 (Ala.1981). In weighing the evidence, "courts and juries must use common sens......