Silvey v. State, 7 Div. 385

Citation485 So.2d 790
Decision Date28 January 1986
Docket Number7 Div. 385
PartiesRobert G. SILVEY v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Roy O. McCord, of McCord & McCord, Gadsden, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and James B. Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PATTERSON, Judge.

The appellant, Robert G. Silvey, was indicted for the offense of intentional murder as proscribed by § 13A-6-2(a)(1), Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to imprisonment for a term of life.

The State's evidence tended to show that, while at the residence of Gladys Mae Lewis on the afternoon of September 14, 1984, Silvey shot Charles Bradley with a .22 caliber long rifle. Bradley died as a result of the gunshot, which went through his left arm and into the lower left portion of his chest. His blood alcohol level, determined at the autopsy, was .32 percent.

Ms. Lewis testified for the State to the following. At the time of the incident, she and Silvey had been living together approximately seven months. She and Silvey had been drinking all day and "had had a lots to drink." Silvey brought Bradley to Ms. Lewis's residence about 3:00 p.m. after picking him up to go to work. Silvey and Bradley worked together and were good friends. Ms. Lewis and Silvey continued to drink and Bradley joined them. Silvey and Bradley were drinking heavily. While Ms. Lewis was in the kitchen cooking, Bradley left the living room, where he had been visiting with Silvey, and entered the kitchen. There, he told Ms. Lewis, "I'm going to go to bed with you tonight." His statement was loud enough for Silvey to hear it. Ms. Lewis replied, "You go back in there where [Silvey] is at and sit down, now. I'm trying to cook." Bradley then went back to the living room. After Ms. Lewis finished cooking, she joined the two men in the living room. She did not know how anything got started between the two men, but an argument ensued and Bradley pushed Silvey. Ms. Lewis thought that they were arguing about the statement that Bradley had made to Ms. Lewis in the kitchen. After the argument appeared to be over, Silvey left the house for about five minutes. When he returned, he was carrying a rifle. Bradley was standing by the coffee table and Silvey was standing at the head of the stairs, by the couch; they were about three feet apart and facing each other. Neither appeared to be angry. Silvey did not say anything to Bradley; he simply reached out to hand Bradley the rifle. Before Bradley grabbed the rifle, the rifle went off; Bradley fell; Silvey dropped the rifle; and he said, "God in heaven, what have I done?" Silvey also asked Ms. Lewis to call an ambulance. Then, Silvey picked up the rifle and disappeared.

Joseph Silvey, Silvey's father, testified that, on the afternoon of September 14, Silvey came into his apartment, which is located across the street from Ms. Lewis's apartment. His son did not appear to be angry. Mr. Silvey heard him say something but he did not understand. He saw him leave with a rifle and go across the street. After Mr. Silvey hollered at his son, Silvey said "something another about showing the gun." Silvey had shown the gun to other people, so his taking the rifle did not bother Mr. Silvey. Later, Silvey returned to the house and put the rifle back where it belonged. Then, Ms. Lewis came over and said something about calling a paramedic. Silvey said, "Well, [Bradley] has been shot, but he's shot low in the arm." Then, Ms. Lewis and Silvey left. Finally, Mr. Silvey testified that when his son drank a few beers, he would want to show the rifle to others.

Officer Mike Moon testified that Silvey was picked up around 5:00 p.m. and read his Miranda warnings. 1 The officer also conveyed his opinion that Silvey appeared intoxicated at this time.

Sergeant Lemley testified that an inspection of Ms. Lewis's residence revealed a .22 shell casing at the top of the stairs. The body was found in front of the television. The distance from the top of the stairway to the body was ten to fifteen feet. The officer also observed a bottle of Old Thompson liquor.

Detective Bearden testified as follows: When he talked to Silvey at approximately 9:00 p.m., Silvey did not appear to be intoxicated. Silvey was read his Miranda warnings and he signed a waiver of those warnings. Silvey told the detective that he threw the gun on the couch and it went off and that he did not think Bradley was hurt too bad, so he left because he knew he would go to jail. A few minutes later, Silvey explained that he realized Bradley was too drunk to be handling a gun so he grabbed it away from him and the gun went off. Silvey also stated that he walked to the top of the stairs and shot Bradley.

Sergeant Lemley, on recall, testified that he was present when Silvey talked with Detective Bearden. In regard to Silvey's appearance, Lemley stated, "He appeared very nervous, like he was someone that was wanting another drink to me, but I don't think he was drunk."

After all testimony was taken and defense counsel had submitted requested written charges, the following occurred:

"MR. McCORD: Judge, we would also request that the Court give the lesser included offense of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide.

"THE COURT: Your defense has been that it was accidental. It's either murder or not. So, I am going to deny that.

"MR. McCORD: Our defense has also been--

"THE COURT: Defense has been that it was an accident throughout the trial, so if it was an accident he's not guilty of murder. If it was, there's no lesser included offense."

Accordingly, the court's oral charge included no instruction on any lesser offense. Thereafter, defense counsel objected:

"Also except to the Court's refusal of giving lesser included offenses of Manslaughter and Criminally Negligent Homicide. We believe in this case the evidence is such that it would support a conviction on either one. I think they should have been given to the jury."

Under the holding of Matkins v. State, [Ms. 8 Div. 1, November 12, 1985] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Cr.App.1985), defense counsel's actions properly preserved for our review the trial court's failure to charge the jury on any lesser included offense. See also Connolly v. State, [Ms. 1 Div. 965, December 10, 1985] --- So.2d ---- (Ala.Cr.App.1985).

In determining the merits of Silvey's claim, we are guided by the following passage from Chavers v. State, 361 So.2d 1106, 1107-08 (Ala.1978):

"An individual accused of the greater offense has a right to have the court charge on the lesser offenses included in the indictment, when there is a reasonable theory from the evidence supporting his position. Fulghum v. State, 291 Ala. 71, 277 So.2d 886 (1973). A court may properly refuse to charge on lesser included offenses only (1) when it is clear to the judicial mind that there is no evidence tending to bring the offense within the definition of the lesser offense, or (2) when the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Lindsay v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 8, 2019
    ...of the accused, becomes a proper subject to be considered by the jury in deciding the question of intent." ’ Silvey v. State, 485 So.2d 790, 792 (Ala. Cr. App. 1986) (quoting Chatham v. State, 92 Ala. 47, 48, 9 So. 607 (1891) ). Consequently, when the crime charged is intentional murder ‘ "......
  • Dearman v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 5, 2022
    ...condition of the accused, becomes a proper subject to be considered by the jury in deciding the question of intent."' Silvey v. State, 485 So.2d 790, 792 (Ala.Crim.App.1986)(quoting Chatham v. State, Ala. 47, 48, 9 So. 607 (1891))." 621 So.2d 1010, 1019 (Ala.Crim.App.1993). We recognize tha......
  • Mitchell v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 21, 1997
    ...So.2d 456, 457 (Ala.1984), and [where] 'the evidence supporting the defendant's position is offered by the State.' Silvey v. State, 485 So.2d 790, 792 (Ala.Cr.App.1986). Accord, Ex parte Stork, 475 So.2d 623, 624 (Ala.1985)." Starks v. State, 594 So.2d 187, 195 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).' Hutcherso......
  • Hutcherson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 27, 1994
    ...of the accused, becomes a proper subject to be considered by the jury in deciding the question of intent." ' Silvey v. State, 485 So.2d 790, 792 (Ala.Cr.App.1986) (quoting Chatham v. State, 92 Ala. 47, 48, 9 So. 607 (1891). Consequently, when the crime charged is intentional murder ' "and t......
  • 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