Moore v. State, 2 Div. 443
| Citation | 469 So.2d 1308 |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 443 |
| Parties | Malcolm Richard MOORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert R. Blair, Selma, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Glenn L. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Malcolm Richard Moore, was convicted of murder on June 20, 1984, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for life. There are two issues on appeal.
Appellant contends that his confession should not have been received in evidence because his waiver of Miranda rights was not a knowing, intelligent or voluntary waiver, considering his level of intoxication at the time he waived his rights.
The record reflects that on September 18, 1983, the appellant had been drinking quite heavily. Richard Julian testified that the appellant had a severe drinking problem and was "dog-drunk" on the 18th.
The appellant became involved in a heated argument at Julian's home, and appellant's daughter separated him from another person. At this time, appellant and another man drove away in a car, and Mr. Julian called the police.
When the police arrived, Julian made a complaint about the disturbance. While the police were registering the complaint, they received another call that there had been a shooting on Washington Street and they immediately left.
Approximately five or ten minutes after the police left, appellant Moore returned to Julian's home in a red Chevrolet Vega automobile. At this time, the appellant took a shotgun, some shotgun shells, and a bottle of wine out of the car. Moore threw the shotgun in some bushes, and said he wanted to wipe his car of fingerprints. He also stated that he had just killed R.O.
In the meantime, the police had found R.O. Middleton dead, lying face down at the screen door of his house with a gunshot wound to the head. The police then returned to Mr. Julian's house and took custody of the appellant. About four hours later, at the police station, Moore made a statement confessing to shooting Middleton. The admissibility of this statement is here challenged.
The test to determine the admissibility of a confession is a two-part inquiry: first, the court must consider whether the government complied with the Miranda requirements, and, second, the court must then rule on the issue of the confession's voluntariness. United States v. Sims, 719 F.2d 375 (11th Cir.1983). Further, Hendrick v. State, [Ms.1984] 444 So.2d 905 (Ala.Crim.App.1984).
In the present case there was conflicting testimony regarding the extent of appellant's intoxication at the time he made his statement. Richard Julian testified that the appellant had been drinking heavily before the shooting and was drunk. Angela Julian, Moore's daughter, made a statement that the appellant was still drunk the following day when she visited him in the jail.
On the other hand, Detective Owings stated he was present when Detective Lewellen took a written statement from appellant about four hours after the shooting. Owings stated that appellant's speech was normal, and that he did not smell alcohol on the appellant. Owings additionally stated that appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. State
...present evidence that the defendant was read his Miranda rights and that the confession was voluntary. See Magwood, id.; Moore v. State, 469 So.2d 1308 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Waters v. State, 360 So.2d 358 (Ala.Cr.App.1978) cert. denied, 360 So.2d 367 (Ala.1978); Reynolds v. State, 346 So.2d 97......
-
Self v. State, 2 Div. 591
...So.2d 1180 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 1187 (Ala.1980); Garrison v. State, 372 So.2d 55 (Ala.Cr.App.1979); Moore v. State, 469 So.2d 1308 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). The trial judge, in determining the voluntariness of a confession, must consider all the attendant circumstances, with the ......
-
Williams v. State
...voluntary. Carpenter v. State, 581 So.2d 1277 (Ala.Cr.App.1991); Hutchinson v. State, 516 So.2d 889 (Ala.Cr.App.1987); Moore v. State, 469 So.2d 1308 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). The appellant argues that the officers rendered the Miranda warnings ineffective when they rephrased those rights in "stre......
-
Staten v. State
...informed of his Miranda rights before making any statements. Adams v. State, 484 So.2d 1160, 1164 (Ala.Cr.App.1985); Moore v. State, 469 So.2d 1308, 1309 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). Whether a waiver is voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made depends upon the particular circumstances of each c......