Webb v. State
Decision Date | 20 December 1996 |
Docket Number | CR-94-1374 |
Citation | 696 So.2d 295 |
Parties | Tiko Maurice WEBB v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Richard Jaffe, Cecilee Beasley, and Stephen Strickland, Birmingham, for Appellant.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Rosa Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
The appellant, Tiko Maurice Webb, was convicted of manslaughter, a violation of § 13A-6-3, Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant was tried as an aider and abettor to the principal, Anthony Liggons, for the shooting death of Howard Hall, Jr. He was sentenced to 16 years in the state penitentiary.
The state's evidence tended to show that at approximately 7:00 p.m. on October 23, 1992, the Birmingham Police Department responded to a call. Officer Jessie Straiton of the Birmingham Police Department's evidence collection unit, testified that upon arriving, she observed a small pickup truck angled into the edge of an apartment building and that a body, subsequently identified as Howard Hall, Jr., was lying on the ground a few feet from the truck. Dr. Bruce Alexander of the Jefferson County Coroner and Medical Examiner's Office testified that he conducted an autopsy and determined that the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because, he says, the state's evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to support his conviction for manslaughter. After a review of the record we believe that sufficient evidence was indeed presented to submit the case to the jury for its determination.
The state's evidence showed that the victim was shot by Anthony Liggons. The issue presented here is whether the appellant was an accomplice to the shooting. Dorothy Collie testified that she witnessed the shooting and the events that led to the shooting. She testified that she knew both Liggons and the appellant and that both were together around the area in front of her house when a white truck driven by the victim circled the area. The truck circled several times, and on two occasions Liggons motioned for the driver to stop. The third time the truck stopped and the appellant approached the passenger side of the truck and Liggons approached the driver's side. Collie testified that Liggons and the victim argued, that the appellant opened and shut the passenger side door, and that Liggons shot the victim.
The appellant gave conflicting accounts to police of the facts surrounding the shooting. He told police that he and Liggons had heard shots at a distance and that they ran to a nearby house where they watched television. The appellant testified differently at trial. At trial he stated that Liggons arrived at the site of the shooting after he did. He admitted, at trial, that he had told several lies in his statement to police.
The evidence here presented a jury question as to whether the appellant was an accomplice. The issues presented by this case are similar to the issues addressed by this court in Payne v. State, 487 So.2d 256 (Ala.Cr.App.1986), where we stated:
487 So.2d at 261-62 (Emphasis added.) See also Fortier v. State, 515 So.2d 101 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1043, 108 S.Ct. 776, 98 L.Ed.2d 862 (1988); Reeves v. State, 530 So.2d 894 (Ala.Cr.App.1988).
This court further discussed "presence" as it relates to "aiding and abetting" in Gwin v. State, 456 So.2d 845, 851 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), and stated:
(Emphasis added.)
There was sufficient evidence presented to submit the case to the jury for its determination. The jury was free to conclude that the appellant's presence when Liggons motioned for the victim to stop, his presence at the opposite side of the car, his opening and closing the car door, and his continued presence with the appellant after the shooting, all established that the appellant was ready and able to aid Liggons in the shooting. For these reasons, the trial court did not err in denying the appellant's motion to dismiss.
The appellant further contends that he was denied a fair trial because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Specifically, he contends that there were several instances where the prosecutor made comments that were either...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Woods v. State
...42 Ala.App. 499, 502, 169 So.2d 27 (1964)." "`Payne v. State, 487 So.2d 256, 261-62 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). See also Webb v. State, 696 So.2d 295 (Ala. Crim.App.1996).' "Harris v. State, 854 So.2d 145, 151-52 "Also, `"[i]ntent, ... being a state or condition of the mind, is rarely, if ever, su......
-
Evans v. State
...review, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss and the motion for a mistrial. In Webb v. State, 696 So.2d 295 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), this Court "`In reviewing allegedly improper prosecutorial argument, we must first determine if the argument was, in fact......
-
Buford v. State
...State, 42 Ala.App. 499, 502, 169 So.2d 27 (1964).' "Payne v. State, 487 So.2d 256, 261-62 (Ala.Crim.App.1986). See also Webb v. State, 696 So.2d 295 (Ala.Crim.App.1996)." Harris v. State, 854 So.2d 145, 151-52 (Ala.Crim.App.2002). "When two or more persons enter upon an unlawful purpose, wi......
-
Harris v. State
...State, 42 Ala.App. 499, 502, 169 So.2d 27 (1964)." Payne v. State, 487 So.2d 256, 261-62 (Ala. Crim.App.1986). See also Webb v. State, 696 So.2d 295 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). Here, the evidence was sufficient to establish Harris's role as an accomplice in the robbery, burglary, and murder. The e......