Lewis v. State, 8 Div. 558
Decision Date | 18 May 1982 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 558 |
Parties | Gary Wayne LEWIS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James M. Corder of Steele, Alexander, Corder & Plunk, Athens, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jeffery H. Long, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A major issue on appeal is whether defendant was entitled to a directive or instruction by the trial court that the jury should find that defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity, as pleaded by him. We have considerable doubt whether defendant presented the question on the trial in such a way that it is reviewable on appeal. However, in the absence of any contention by appellee as to the reviewability of the question, we proceed to determine it.
There is no disagreement between the parties as to the applicable governing law on the subject at the time the alleged crime was committed, on December 5, 1979, prior to the effective date of the present Alabama Criminal Code. As of that time, as summarized in the Commentary to § 13A-3-1 of the Alabama Criminal Code, effective January 1, 1980, the law in Alabama as to the defense in a criminal case was:
"Under a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the burden is on the defendant to clearly prove to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury that he was so affected by disease of the brain when the offense was committed as to render him so insane that he did not know right from wrong with respect to the particular offense charged, or by reason of such mental disease he could not resist doing the wrong and the crime must have been the product solely of such diseased mind."
In support of the quoted statement, the Commentary cites Streeter v. State, 278 Ala. 272, 177 So.2d 826 (1965); Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 122 So.2d 360 (1960); Lee v. State, 265 Ala. 623, 93 So.2d 757 (1957); Lakey v. State, 258 Ala. 116, 61 So.2d 117 (1952), and cases cited therein; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854 (1886). The facts in the case are undisputed. This is true as to all of the evidence as to the commission of the crime, furnished by witnesses for the State exclusively, and as to the evidence pertaining to defendant's plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, furnished by witnesses for defendant exclusively, including the officer who arrested the defendant.
We first consider defendant's evidence bearing on the question as to defendant's sanity. Such evidence has been correctly summarized in appellant's brief as follows:
In further support of his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, defendant called Officer Blakely as a witness. Appellant summarizes the testimony of Officer Blakely as follows:
The undisputed facts as to the circumstances of the alleged crime were that on December 5, 1979, defendant entered Cross Key Grocery Store with a pistol in his hand, a mask on his face and sunglasses over his eyes. He was dressed in blue jeans, and he robbed the manager of the store, Mr. Billy Cook, and Mr. Franklin Kelley, who was calling on the store as a salesman. According to Mr. Kelley's testimony, According to further testimony of Mr. Kelley, he was robbed by defendant of "around a $147.00 in cash and two checks," and defendant placed the money and the checks in a "money bag someone would take to the bank." The witness further said that "I might have seen his hand shaking maybe just a little bit and when he said he didn't want to hurt anyone and all he wanted was Cook's money and then later, you know, he told me he wanted my money too."
Mr. Cook testified, inter alia:
Mr. Cook further testified that after defendant cleared the store and the immediate vicinity, Mr. Cook and someone else chased him, partly by using a truck and running defendant into a pasture, into which they followed him...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. State
...affect a substantial right of the appellant. It is within the trial court's discretion to exclude cumulative evidence. Lewis v. State, 414 So.2d 470 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); C. Gamble, supra, § 10.07. The admission of cumulative evidence, however, even upon an undisputed fact, is not prejudicial ......
-
Carlisle v. State, 6 Div. 987
...witnesses testified, the log would have been cumulative. See, e.g., Brooks v. State, 471 So.2d 507 (Ala.Cr.App.1984); Lewis v. State, 414 So.2d 470 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Gullatt v. State, 409 So.2d 466 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). Also see the discussion in the previous JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AFFIRMED; ......
-
Alvis v. State
...Compare Cunningham v. State, 426 So.2d 484, 490 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Thomas v. State, 418 So.2d 199 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Lewis v. State, 414 So.2d 470 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Bowen v. State, supra. In addition, appellant's act of striking Mr. Morrison was bizarre, unprovoked, and apparently without ......
-
Morgan v. State
...expected Larry Hallett to testify to. It is within the trial judge's discretion to exclude cumulative evidence. Lewis v. State, 414 So.2d 470 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). Thomas Martin, the appellant's longtime employer, testified that, for approximately two years before the appellant was incarcera......