Hollingsworth v. State

Decision Date31 October 1978
Docket Number2 Div. 224
Citation366 So.2d 326
PartiesDouglas Lloyd HOLLINGSWORTH v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

William T. Faile of Morris & Faile, Selma, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and James F. Hampton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LEIGH M. CLARK, Retired Circuit Judge.

Appellant-defendant was indicted in one count for an assault upon Captain William H. Duke, with the intent to murder him, and in another count for unlawfully threatening, harming, or causing injury to a law officer actively engaged in the performance of his duty.

In response to a motion to compel an election, the State struck the second count and the case proceeded through the trial to a verdict under Count I, the count charging an assault with intent to murder.

The jury found defendant guilty of an assault and fixed his punishment at a fine of five hundred dollars. The court imposed additional punishment of a six-month sentence to hard labor for Dallas County.

At the conclusion of the evidence for the State, the defendant moved to exclude the evidence. The motion as overruled. Defendant rested without presenting any testimony. He requested in writing the general affirmative charge in his favor, which the trial court refused.

The undisputed evidence shows that at about 2:00 A.M. on March 26, 1977, there were six, seven, eight, nine or ten pistol shots fired from an automobile at, into or in the direction of the residence of Captain William H. Duke, a deputy sheriff with an assignment as Chief of Narcotics, of Dallas County. An officer living in the same neighborhood testified that he heard the shots and saw the automobile. He notified law enforcement personnel who came to the scene but did not at that time apprehend anyone or find any evidence of injury or damage to any person or property.

Captain Duke was at home the night of the shooting, but he was not aware of the shooting until well after sunrise, when his son, Mr. Paul Duke of the Police Department of Selma, came to the residence soon after he had marked off duty about 7:00 A.M. The son noticed a bullet hole in the glass of the front door. Soon thereafter, Deputy Sheriff Walker arrived at the residence. Upon inspection, it was revealed that two bullets had entered the house; one bullet went through the front door, through the living room and dining room, where no partition was between them, and went through the sliding glass of the back door. The bullet itself was not recovered. The other bullet went through a pane of a front window, through the wall between the living room and kitchen, and into a cabinet, in which it was located and from which it was removed.

At the house at the time it was shot into, were Captain Duke and Mrs. Duke and their daughter-in-law, Mrs. Paul Duke, and the six-week-old child of Mr. and Mrs. Paul Duke. Officer Paul Duke was not at home but was on duty at the Police Department. Captain and Mrs. Duke were sleeping in a rear bedroom. Mrs. Paul Duke and her child were in a front bedroom. The third bedroom, the one nearest the front door, was unoccupied. None of the occupants heard the shots. They were all unaware of what occurred until Mr. Paul Duke returned the next morning from his duties at the police station.

The evidence connecting defendant with the criminal conduct involved consisted exclusively of some incriminating admission by him and the testimony of Ray Parnell.

The statement of defendant, which was reduced to writing and signed by defendant, was as follows:

"On March 26 me and Racy Parnell at approximately 2:00 A.M. went by Billy Duke's house. Racy Parnell shot into his house five or six times with a .22 pistol. I drove the car, but I did not know that Racy Parnell was going to shoot into the house. I did not know that Racy had a pistol on him. This is a true statement to the best of my knowledge."

The quoted statement was signed by Douglas L. Hollingsworth and witnessed by W. H. Duke. Below the statement just quoted was the following:

"A few days later I got scared about having a pistol so I went to the new bypass bridge and threw the .22 pistol into the Alabama River."

The additional statement was also signed by defendant and witnessed by W. H. Duke.

Ray Parnell testified that he had known defendant about seven years, that on March 26, 1977, they were "room mates or sharing a place," that on the early morning of March 26, they were traveling in defendant's Volkswagen, having left the place where they lived between 8:00 and 11:00 P.M. They were "smoking pot and drinking." He knew where Captain Duke lived. There was a gun, a pistol, in the glove compartment of the automobile, which "Doug took care of." They were "kind of looking for a party or something like that," during their travel all that evening. When they arrived in the neighborhood of where Captain Duke lived, Parnell took the gun out of the glove compartment. He was asked what he said about that time. His testimony continued as follows:

"A Something about shooting either his car up or his house. I'm not sure which one. Mr. Duke's house.

"Q At that time something to the effect of shooting either the car and the house of Mr. Duke?

"A No. No. The car or the house.

"Q The car or the house?

"A Yes, sir."

Upon being interrogated as to any response by defendant, the witness answered, "He said maybe 'yeah.' " Testimony of the witness continued as follows:

"Q All right, sir. I'll ask you one more time. You said he said maybe, yeah; is that correct?

"A Yes.

"Q Do you recall anything else that was said on that occasion?

"A No, sir.

"Q All right, sir. Then what happened?

"A Then we were getting close to Mr. Duke's house and it happened. That's when we committed the crime.

"Q Okay. I understand that. Now, what did take place though? You said you were getting closer to Duke's house as those words were exchanged. Then what happened?

"A Well, a gun was already out, and we slowed down when we got to Mr. Duke's house to make this turn here; and I rolled down the window and I emptied the gun.

"Q And how many times did you shoot?

"A Nine.

"Q Then what happened?

"A Then we took a right at the corner and went on and then took another right, the next right.

"Q All right, sir. Then where did you go?

"A I think we went straight back "

According to the undisputed evidence, two or three nights after the alleged crime in this case, Parnell again shot into the house of Captain Duke. He was apprehended, charged with assault with intent to murder Captain Duke on the first occasion and with assault with intent to murder Captain Duke on the second occasion, pleaded guilty to the charges and was given a sentence of five years in each case, with the sentences to run concurrently.

During the cross-examination of Ray Parnell and while defendant's attorney was interrogating him on the question of defendant's response to statements by Parnell as to shooting "up" Captain Duke's automobile or into his house, some reference was made to other statements made by the witness. The trial court ruled that defendant had opened the door for the admission, over defendant's objection, of a recorded statement made by the witness to counsel for the State and Deputy Sheriff Walker, a part of which was as follows:

"MR. GREEN: When was this car thing discussed?

"MR. PARNELL: Just right before we went by his house.

"MR. GREEN: Y'all were a block or two away or

"MR. PARNELL: Yes.

"MR. WALKER: At the time you got the gun out?

"MR. PARNELL: That was the original idea.

"MR. WALKER: At the time you got the gun out?

"MR. PARNELL: Right.

"MR. WALKER: That's when that conversation began?

"MR. GREEN: I understand. So, what you are saying you were saying something about y'all were going to shoot up his car, I got the gun let's go shoot up his car?

"MR. PARNELL: Yes, sir.

"MR. GREEN: Y'all were saying something about shooting up his car?

"MR. PARNELL: Yes, sir.

"MR. GREEN: Do you remember that there was some agreement or some communication by him that that was all right or that was the thing to do or something along those lines?

"MR. PARNELL: Yes, sir. There was, but like I said again I don't know if he thought I was kidding

"MR. GREEN: Just going along with you, whether he was agreeing with you don't

"MR. PARNELL: Yes, sir.

"MR. GREEN: But you do recall some statement on his part of yeah man that's good or that's cool or something like that? Or am I wrong, what do you recall?

"MR. PARNELL: I don't recall definitely I don't recall. But I feel sure that he did make a reply of some sort of agreement whether kidding or sincere.

"MR. WALKER: From that point on, then, what happened?

"MR. GREEN: And wait this was about the car not about the house?

"MR. PARNELL: Okay. Yeah.

"MR. GREEN: That's what you're talking about?

"MR. PARNELL: Yes.

"MR. GREEN: And then what happened?

"MR. PARNELL: And then I think we must have been just a block or half a block from his house and one of us got the idea probably me. I'm sure, because I had the gun, to just go ahead and shoot up his house.

"MR. GREEN: Was anything said about that?

"MR. PARNELL: Sure I'm sure there was something said. I'm sure that I said because, you know, it was my idea.

"MR. GREEN: Do you recall any statements from him?

"MR. PARNELL: Only again in the same route he said, I'm not sure what he said, sure, cool, or

"MR. WALKER: Was there any conversation after you shot up the house as to why you didn't shoot the car; you changed your mind to shoot the house between the two of you? Did he make any statement as to why you chose to shoot the house rather than the car? Make any comment?

"MR. PARNELL: I don't think I don't think he said anything. I think there was something said but I'm not sure if it was him or me but I think there was something said along those lines. And other than that there was mostly silence right after it was done from the both of us."

Also admitted in evidence, over the objection of defendant, was an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Snyder v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • March 20, 2013
    ...Lamb v. State, 93 Md.App. at 443, 613 A.2d at 412. Other states follow this approach as well. For instance, in Hollingsworth v. State, 366 So.2d 326 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), the Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reversed a conviction for assault. The defendant shot into a house with all the li......
  • McArdle v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 22, 1979
    ...substantial. The scintilla rule does not apply in a criminal case. Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263 (1933); Hollingsworth v. State, 366 So.2d 326 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 333 (Ala.1978). Here, those inferences of present intention to kill are simply insufficient to s......
  • Twyman v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • February 23, 1990
    ...injure is an essential element of the crime of assault." Stoutmire v. State, 358 So.2d 508, 512 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); Hollingsworth v. State, 366 So.2d 326, 331 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 366 So.2d 333 (Ala.1979). Furthermore, "may be presumed from the act of using a deadly weapon unless......
  • State v. Trackwell
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • July 20, 1990
    ...be liable for any subsequent criminal act committed by Holmes. We do not agree. As the court stated in Hollingsworth v. State, 366 So.2d 326 (Ala.Crim.App.1978): The language of some of the cases emphasizing the requirements necessary or sufficient to make one accountable as a principal, wh......
  • 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