Scroggin v. State
Decision Date | 18 February 1988 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 926 |
Citation | 529 So.2d 1025 |
Parties | Jefferson T. SCROGGIN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Steven Backer, Huntsville, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Stacey Houston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Jefferson T. Scroggin, was convicted of attempted murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
The victim, Drenda Scroggin; her daughter; and Wayne Stinson were beside the pool at Plantation South Condominiums on the afternoon in question. The appellant, who had been divorced from the victim in 1986, arrived at the pool and began talking to the victim about an income tax refund check. The appellant then pulled out a gun and pointed it at the victim. Wayne Stinson testified that the appellant fired a shot. Stinson then pushed the appellant into the pool. The appellant fired another shot as he was falling into the pool. The appellant then stood in the pool and fired another shot at the victim. Stinson further testified that the appellant got out of the pool and fired at least two more shots at her (Drenda Scroggin.)
Regina Smith, a 13-year-old, witnessed the shooting. She testified that she observed the appellant talking to the victim and then observed the appellant draw his gun. She testified that the appellant shot the victim about three times before Wayne Stinson pushed him into the pool. She further stated that another shot was fired as the appellant was falling into the pool and that the appellant then shot Drenda Scroggin again.
Michael William King, an officer with the Huntsville Police Department, testified that he arrived at the scene and observed the appellant crouched beside the lounge chair in which the victim was lying. The appellant was holding a gun, which he threw down at an officer's request.
Dr. Walter Schoepfle testified that he treated the victim in the emergency room and found that she had been shot several times. He testified that there were two wounds in her neck, a wound along the right flank, a wound on the right side of her abdomen, one along the right hip, and one toward the back of the right side of her chest. The victim's mother testified that the victim was unable to move as of the time of the trial.
The appellant argues that the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support his conviction for attempted murder. Specifically, the appellant argues that the State failed to show that the appellant intended to murder. Intent is a necessary element of any attempt. See § 13A-4-2(a), Code of Alabama (1975). "In Alabama, a person commits the crime of attempted murder if he intends to cause the death of another person and does any overt act toward the commission of that intent." Chaney v. State, 417 So.2d 625, 626 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). Id. at 627.
Intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence:
" "
Bishop v. State, 482 So.2d 1322, 1326 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), quoting Underhill on Criminal Evidence, § 540 (3d ed. 1923).
The State presented ample evidence from which the jury could infer that the appellant intended to murder the victim. The appellant aimed at and shot the victim a number of times. There was further evidence from the testimony of the appellant's sister that he had previously threatened to kill the victim. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that the appellant had the requisite intent to kill.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to evidence presented by the State which he contends was inflammatory, overly prejudicial, and designed merely to incite the sympathy of the jury. The appellant objected to the admission into evidence of the victim's bathing suit and a towel, which were covered with dried blood; a photograph of the victim and her daughter before the shooting; and a photograph of the victim in the hospital, which also depicted items of medical equipment. The defense counsel's objection to the introduction of the bathing suit and towel is not contained in the record, although a statement that the trial court overruled the objection, following a side bar conference, is recorded. Abbott v. State, 494 So.2d 789, 791 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). See also Jefferson v. State, 449 So.2d 1280, 1282 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) (). However, the trial court did not err in allowing the bathing suit and towel to be introduced into evidence.
Bell v. State, 473 So.2d 622, 623 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). The appellant contends that he did not intend to murder the victim; thus the blood-stained bathing suit and towel were illustrative of the nature and seriousness of the wounds inflicted.
The photographs of the victim also showed the seriousness of her injuries. Additionally, the photograph of the victim in the hospital was admissible, despite its inclusion of medical equipment necessary to the victim's existence. " " Kinder v. State, 515 So.2d 55, 64 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to compel the State to inform him of the current address of the victim. The victim was hospitalized in Atlanta, Georgia. There is no constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case. Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 97 S.Ct. 837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). The appellant argues that the victim was a material witness and he "wished to be able to determine her version of the incident in question." "The prosecutor was under no duty to inform the defendant as to his theory of relevancy or to draw a blueprint for him as to the State's plan of prosecution." Knight v. State, 50 Ala.App. 39, 276 So.2d 624, 628 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 290 Ala....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
James v. Culliver
...photographs depict medical equipment used to treat the victim does not necessarily render theminadmissible. See Scroggin v. State, 529 So. 2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988).After reviewing the photographs that were admitted into evidence in this case, we conclude that they were relevant ......
-
James v. State
...photographs depict medical equipment used to treat the victim does not necessarily render them inadmissible. See Scroggin v. State, 529 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Ala. Crim.App.1988). After reviewing the photographs that were admitted into evidence in this case, we conclude that they were relevant t......
-
Morton v. State
...The trial court denied the motion. A defendant does not have a constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case. Scroggin v. State, 529 So.2d 1025 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). See also Clifton v. State, 545 So.2d 173 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). Thus, this court must look to the court's discovery order......
-
Garrett v. State
...any evidence which tended to prove the appellant's innocence so as to deprive him of a fair trial. See, e.g., Scroggin v. State, 529 So.2d 1025 (Ala.Crim.App.1988); Reed v. State, 407 So.2d 153 (Ala.Crim.App.1980), rev'd on other grounds, 407 So.2d 162 The appellant finally contends that th......