State v. Watson

Citation221 So.3d 497
Decision Date09 September 2016
Docket NumberCR-15-0211
Parties STATE of Alabama v. Demetrius Raishad WATSON
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Luther Strange, atty. gen. and John M. Porter, asst. atty. gen., for appellant.

Richard Stephen Jaffe and Brett Heath Knight, Birmingham, for appellee.

WELCH, Judge.

The State of Alabama appeals from the trial court's pretrial determination that Demetrius Raishad Watson was entitled to immunity from prosecution for the murder of Lisa Langston, a violation of § 13A–6–2(a)(1), Ala. Code 1975.

The pertinent facts are in the trial judge's order set forth below. A summary of the facts discloses that at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 5, 2013, Watson's frightened female cousin, Datrial Allen-Cathey, summoned him to come to her home because a female stranger, the victim, Lisa Langston, appeared to be having some type of psychotic episode in Cathey's yard. Watson, armed with a pistol, immediately went to Cathey's residence, where he encountered Langston in the yard. He did not know Langston. Langston was foaming at the mouth and barking like a dog. She immediately accused Watson of killing her baby and charged toward him, exclaiming that she intended to kill him. Langston was "fidgeting" with something at her waist as she charged toward Watson. Watson fired once into the ground to scare Langston, but she shouted that she was not afraid of guns and continued to rush toward Watson. Watson fired a second time striking Langston in her arm. However, the bullet traveled into her body striking her lung. She died of the gunshot wound

.

On May 8, 2014, Watson was indicted for Langston's murder. On October 9, 2014, Watson filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that pursuant to § 13A–3–23(d), Ala. Code 1975, he was entitled to immunity from prosecution because his use of deadly physical force was justified under the circumstances and, thus, lawful. Section 13A–3–23, Ala. Code 1975, provides, in relevant part:

"(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force ... if the person reasonably believes that another person is:
"(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.
"....
"(3) Committing or about to commit a[n] ... assault in the first or second degree ....
"....
"(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.
"(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:
"(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.
"(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.
"(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
"(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful."

On October 6, 2015, a hearing was conducted on Watson's request for immunity from prosecution. Following the hearing and the receipt of posthearing briefs, the trial court entered the following order granting Watson immunity from prosecution:

"This matter is before the Court on [Watson's] Motion to Dismiss the Indictment pursuant to the provisions of Section 13A-3-23(d) of the Alabama Criminal Code. This Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on this motion on October 6, 2015. The following witnesses appeared before the court and provided testimony in this matter: Joshua Watson, Datrial Allen-Cathey, Demetrius Watson, [and] Shelby County Deputy Sheriff John Shearon. Having considered the pleadings, the testimony of witnesses presented by the State of Alabama and [Watson] defendant, the evidence presented during the hearing, together with the argument of counsel and the briefs submitted by the parties, the Court makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law:
"FINDINGS OF FACTS
"First, this Honorable Court heard the testimony of Mr. Joshua Watson, the brother of Demetrius Watson. Joshua testified that on the night of December 5, 2013, he, along with his girlfriend, was traveling down Highway 31 in Calera, AL when they observed a train stopped at the entrance of Slab Hill Road. Joshua testified that [he] observed an unknown woman, later identified to be Mrs. Lisa Langston, pulled over on the side of the road (at the intersection of Highway 31 and Slab Hill Road). As he drove closer to Mrs. Langston's truck, Joshua testified that it appeared she was beating something in the back of the truck. Joshua testified that he proceeded to turn onto Slab Hill Road and observed Mrs. Langston hysterically screaming for someone named Haley and acting very erratic. Joshua testified that while he attempted to speak to Mrs. Langston, she acted as if she never saw him and appeared to ‘stare right through him.’ Joshua then observed Mrs. Langston leave her truck (with the driver side door still open) and head to the stopped train. Joshua then testified that he observed Mrs. Langston crawl underneath the train, stumble several times, and then proceed down Slab Hill Road toward his families' property. Out of concern for the safety of his family, including several young children who often play outside, Joshua testified that he contacted his family by phone and to warn them and described Mrs. Langston's erratic behavior.
"Moments later, and almost 600 feet from the stopped train, Mrs. Langston arrived at the doorstep of Mrs. Datrial Allen-Cathey, the cousin of [Watson]. Mrs. Cathey testified that she had just returned home from a chemotherapy appointment and that it had started to turn dark. Mrs. Cathey testified that [she], her three children (ages 13, 11, and 8), Melissa Thomas and Connie Baker, were at home when they heard noise and loud knocks on the door. Ms. Cathey testified that she and Ms. Thomas went to the door and observed Mrs. Langston acting alarmingly erratic and repeatedly screaming that [her] husband killed [her] daughter’ and that her daughter was hung in a tree behind Mrs. Cathey's house.
"Mrs. Cathey testified that because they could not calm Mrs. Langston down and that her behavior was frightening her and her children, she called [Watson] and told him to come and help immediately. Mrs. Cathey testified that once [Watson] arrived, Mrs. Langston took off after him while hysterically screaming, ‘You killed my baby, you killed my baby.’ Ms. Cathey also testified that, at one point, [Mrs. Langston] broke through a wooden fence in order to charge towards [Watson]. She testified that [Watson] attempted numerous times to calm Mrs. Langston down, but to no avail. At this time, Mrs. Cathey called 911 and explained to the dispatcher that an unknown woman was at her house, going crazy, rolling around in the yard, scaring her and her kids, and yelling that her husband had killed her daughter. While still on the phone with the 911 dispatcher, Mrs. Cathey observed Mrs. Langston charge at [Watson]. Mrs. Cathey then testified that [Watson] fired a warning shot into the ground, but that Mrs. Langston kept advancing onto [Watson] and screamed, ‘I am not scared of any gun’ and continued rushing towards him. [Watson] then shot once more.
"[Watson] next testified. Upon arriving at Mrs. Cathey's house, [Watson] testified that he observed an unknown woman foaming at the mouth, on all fours, and constantly rolling back and forth on the ground. [Watson] testified that he repeatedly and calmly requested Mrs. Langston to leave their property numerous times, but that Mrs. Langston refused. Instead, Mrs. Langston began to hysterically scream at [Watson] that he was the one who, in fact, had killed her daughter and that she was going to kill him. Mrs. Langston then began to advance towards [Watson]. [Watson] testified that he immediately warned her that he was armed and to stop. Mrs. Langston disregarded this warning and kept charging towards him. [Watson] then pulled out his pistol, [for] which he has a valid permit, and fired a warning shot into the ground.
"However, in spite of this second warning to stop, Mrs. Langston screamed that a gun did not scare her and kept advancing towards [Watson] while still threatening to kill him. Mrs. Langston was fidgeting around her waist with her hands. Mrs. Langston then attempted to attack [Watson]. Due to Mrs. Langston's constant fidgeting around her waist as well as it being dark, [Watson] testified that he had no way of knowing if Mrs. Langston had a weapon. At this time, [Watson] testified that he fired an additional shot in order to protect himself and his family. The 911 tape shows that within three seconds or so from the warning shot, [Watson] fired this second shot hitting her in the arm.
"[Watson] testified that he immediately told everyone to get inside. He then took the phone from Mrs. Cathey in order to speak to the 911 dispatcher. During this conversation as well as the ensuing interview with the lead detective, [Watson] explained that Mrs. Langston threatened to kill him, initially grabbed him, and
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • State v. Smith (In re Smith)
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 2019
    ...tenus rule is applicable to review of a trial court's decision regarding a motion filed pursuant to § 13A-3-23(d). State v. Watson, 221 So.3d 497 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016)." ‘When evidence is presented ore tenus to the trial court, the court's findings of fact based on that evidence are presum......
  • State v. Smith (In re Smith)
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 11 Enero 2019
    ...ore tenus rule is applicable to review of a trial court's decision regarding a motion filed pursuant to § 13A-3-23(d). State v. Watson, 221 So. 3d 497 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016)."'When evidence is presented ore tenus to the trial court, the court's findings of fact based on that evidence are pr......
  • Ex parte Johnson
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 24 Marzo 2023
    ... Ex parte Kendall Tewayne Johnson In re: State of Alabama v. Kendall Tewayne Johnson No. CR-21-0117 Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals March 24, 2023 ...           ... 13A-3-23(d)." Ex parte Smith, 282 So.3d 831, ... 837 (Ala. 2019) (citing State v. Watson, 221 So.3d ... 497 (Ala.Crim.App.2016)). In my opinion, because Johnson and ... the State asked the circuit court to resolve the ... ...

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