Siler v. State
Decision Date | 02 May 1997 |
Docket Number | CR-95-2213 |
Citation | 705 So.2d 552 |
Parties | M.C. SILER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles D. Bryant, Brundidge; and Thad Yancey, Jr., Troy, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Beth Slate Poe, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, M.C. Siler, was convicted of the murder of T.J.H., a minor, and sentenced to life in prison. The undisputed evidence was that T.J.H. was last seen alive on June 7, 1995. On June 9, 1995, the body of T.J.H. was found with two gunshot wounds to the head. The body had been dragged approximately three feet from where it had fallen. Near the body was a pool of blood, in which was found a spent bullet cartridge, a clip spring from an automatic weapon, the victim's orange University of Tennessee hat, and a "cartoon arm" pointing toward the body. The gun used in the crime was not found. The only witness to directly tie the appellant to the murder was C.P., a juvenile. C.P. was adjudicated a delinquent because of his presence at the murder of T.J.H.
The pertinent testimony of C.P. was as follows: The appellant asked C.P. to accompany him because the appellant had earlier been "jumped" by someone. During this walk, the two came into contact with T.J.H. and Eric Seymore. The appellant told T.J.H. "I got you now." The appellant raised his shirt, pulled out a gun, and shot T.J.H. Eric Seymore then took the gun from the appellant and began to hit T.J.H. over the head with the weapon. Then Eric Seymore shot T.J.H. The appellant retrieved the gun back from Seymore, pointed the gun at C.P.'s head, and told C.P. that he knew where he lived and that if C.P. told anyone what had happened the appellant would kill him.
The appellant raises four issues on appeal.
The appellant argues that State's witness, C.P., was an accomplice as a matter of law and that his testimony was not sufficiently corroborated to sustain the appellant's conviction.
Wright v. State, 494 So.2d 726, 738 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (quoting Jacks v. State, 364 So.2d 397, 403 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 406 (Ala.1978)). If the trial court finds that the evidence is disputed and cannot determine whether or not a witness is an accomplice as a matter of law, then it must submit the issue to the jury. The jury must then determine from the facts if the witness is an accomplice, and if so, look to see if there is enough independent corroborating evidence that tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.
C.P. was adjudicated a delinquent for his involvement in the killing of T.J.H. Although juvenile records are sealed, the State did admit that the underlying charge for C.P.'s delinquency was the murder of T.J.H. The appellant incorrectly states that the adjudication of C.P. as a delinquent was a plea of guilty to the murder of T.J.H., and, as a matter of law, C.P. is an accomplice. A minor or juvenile can certainly be an accomplice in a crime. Porter v. State, 654 So.2d 63 (Ala.Cr.App.1994). However, an adjudication of delinquency is not the equivalent of a conviction or plea of guilty to a crime. Falkner v. State, 586 So.2d 39 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). See also, Chambers v. State, 497 So.2d 607 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). The two are mutually exclusive. "[T]here cannot be an adjudication of delinquency and a conviction of crime for the same act." Kinder v. State, 515 So.2d 55, 69 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (quoting George, Gault and the Juvenile Court Revolution (1968)).
Even if C.P. had pled guilty to participating in the murder of T.J.H., this would not necessarily make C.P. an accomplice as a matter of law. Wright, 494 So.2d at 739. Id. C.P. testified that although he was present during the murder of T.J.H., he was not involved in the crime. C.P. testified that he was brought there by the appellant and believed that the appellant and others were going to beat up T.J.H., but he did not know that they were going to kill T.J.H. Id. at 738.
Even if the appellant was correct that C.P.'s delinquency was the equivalent of a guilty plea to the murder of T.J.H., this would not guarantee a finding that C.P. was an accomplice as a matter of law.
The trial court properly held that C.P. was not an accomplice as a matter of law and presented this decision to the jury.
The appellant argues there were two defects in the trial court's charge to the jury.
The appellant submitted the following proposed jury charge to the trial court:
"The fact that a prosecution witness has been charged and convicted of the same crime as that charged against this defendant, you may consider this as a fact in determining whether that witness is an accomplice or not."
The trial court properly refused this submitted charge. As stated in Part I of this opinion, C.P. was not convicted of the same crime as the appellant. C.P. was adjudicated a juvenile delinquent. The above charge is an inaccurate statement of the facts in this case. The appellant's argument is without merit.
The appellant submitted the following proposed jury charge to the trial court:
The appellant admits that the trial court charged the jury on corroborating evidence, but contends that the trial court failed to specifically mention the "subtraction process" as defined in the above submitted charge.
The relevant portion of the trial court's charge to jury follows:
(emphasis added).
The appellant contends that the trial court needed to specifically charge that the jury must "remove the accomplice's testimony and consider only the other evidence to see if it was tending to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Capote v. State
...previously held that a defendant's involvement in gang activity may be relevant to prove motive in a particular case. Siler v. State, 705 So. 2d 552 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997) ; see also Knotts v. State, 686 So. 2d 431, 469 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995), aff'd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala. 1996), cert. denied,......
-
Whitehead v. State
...for doing the act in a criminal case is not to be excluded, but should be left to the consideration of the jury."'" Siler v. State, 705 So.2d 552, 556-57 (Ala.Cr.App.1997), quoting Giddens v. State, 565 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Ala.Cr.App. In addition, we note that the State also properly introduc......
-
Griffin v. State
...previously held that a defendant's involvement in gang activity may be relevant to prove motive in a particular case. Siler v. State, 705 So.2d 552 (Ala.Cr.App.1997); see also Knotts v. State, 686 So.2d 431, 469 (Ala.Cr. App.1995), aff'd, 686 So.2d 486 (Ala.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 119......
-
Graham v. State
...App. 2001). "The remoteness of a collateral act goes to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility." Siler v. State, 705 So. 2d 552, 557 (Ala. Crim. App. 1997).The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to question Vasquez about Graham's prior treatme......