Tuck v. State
Decision Date | 17 June 1980 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 187 |
Citation | 384 So.2d 1240 |
Parties | Gabe Peter TUCK v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John E. Amari, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Sandra M. Solowiej, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
First degree murder; sentence: life imprisonment.
During the early morning hours of September 29, 1978, the appellant shot and killed his ex-wife, Helen Tuck, with a sixteen-gauge shotgun at her home in Birmingham.
Prior to the fatal shooting, the appellant and the deceased had been together at a local lounge where they had had an argument. It appears that the couple had been recently divorced. The evidence is undisputed that the appellant committed the crime and that the State presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. Consequently, a more complete rendition of the facts is unnecessary.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objections to questions propounded to Jay Glass, Chief Medical Inspector of the Jefferson County Coroner's Office, concerning injuries sustained by the deceased. He asserts that such testimony was not relevant to the cause of death and was introduced solely to prejudice and inflame the jury.
The questions and answers complained of are:
The trial court committed no error in allowing the witness to answer the first question quoted above. The qualifications of Mr. Glass as an expert witness were extensive and were stipulated to by the appellant. He was certainly qualified to describe the nature and extent of the wounds and injuries found on the deceased's body and to state his opinion as to the manner or means by which they could have been inflicted. White v. State, 294 Ala. 265, 314 So.2d 857 (1975); Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358, 31 So.2d 71 (1947).
The appellant's objection to the second question and answer above was raised after the witness had answered. There was no motion to exclude the answer. The objection therefore came too late. Hicks v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 372 So.2d 61 (1979); Burlison v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 369 So.2d 844, cert. denied, Ala., 369 So.2d 854 (1979); 6A Alabama Digest Criminal Law § 693.
We likewise note that both objections above were general. General objections to evidence are unavailing if the evidence is admissible for any purpose. Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217, 100 So.2d 750 (1958); Stringer v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 372 So.2d 378, cert. denied, Ala., 372 So.2d 384 (1979).
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to exclude the answer to the following question asked Samuel Dumas, a friend of the deceased's son who was his house guest on the night of the shooting:
We find no error on the part of the trial judge in this instance. The law in Alabama is clear that a witness may testify whether another person appeared to be mad or angry. Tagert v. State, 143 Ala. 88, 39 So. 293 (1905); Dozier v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 337 So.2d 148 (1976); Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 127.01(3), (3d ed. 1977). In Carney v. State, 79 Ala. 14 (1885), Chief Justice Stone wrote:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perkins v. State
...249 Ala. 358, 360, 31 So.2d 71 (1947), and the `manner or means by which the injury could have been inflicted.' Tuck v. State, 384 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). He may state what kind of weapon or instrument could have caused a particular wound, but not whether that weapon actually di......
-
Albarran v. State Of Ala.
...a person is presented." Watts v. State, 282 Ala. 245, 246, 210 So. 2d 805, 807 (Ala. 1968). As this Court stated in Tuck v. State, 384 So. 2d 1240 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980): "The law in Alabama is clear that a witness may testify whether another person appeared to be mad or angry. Tagert v. St......
-
Albarran v. State
...such a person is presented.” Watts v. State, 282 Ala. 245, 246, 210 So.2d 805, 807 (Ala.1968). As this Court stated in Tuck v. State, 384 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Crim.App.1980): “The law in Alabama is clear that a witness may testify whether another person appeared to be mad or angry. Tagert v. Sta......
-
Isom v. State
...Ex parte Thompson, 405 So.2d 721 (Ala.1981)." Richardson v. State, 456 So.2d 1152, 1155 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). See also Tuck v. State, 384 So.2d 1240, 1242-43 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). The instructions relating to manslaughter as a lesser included offense of intentional murder were not confusing or ot......