West v. State, 1 Div. 255
| Citation | 511 So.2d 258 |
| Decision Date | 24 March 1987 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 255 |
| Parties | Ralph Thomas WEST v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Pete J. Vallas, Mobile, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Cecil G. Brendle, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Ralph Thomas West was indicted for rape in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-6-61, Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found the appellant "guilty as charged in the indictment." The trial judge set sentence at life imprisonment without parole.
Dr. Phillip Dozier testified that he saw the victim at the University of South Alabama Medical Center on the night of April 29, 1983. He stated that the victim was in shock when she came to the emergency room and that she had suffered lacerations and contusions to her cheek, forearm and throat. There were blood stains on the victim's clothes. Although Dozier found no trauma to the victim's vaginal area, he noted there was motile sperm present in discharge from her vagina. This indicated that the victim would have had sexual intercourse in the previous twelve to twenty-four hours.
Randall Lamey, an officer with the Bayou La Batre Police Department, testified that he responded to a call at the victim's house on the night in question. When Lamey arrived, he was met at the door by Cindy McNeilly. The victim then walked outside and said, "He raped me and he ran through the woods." (R. 63) The victim was upset and crying.
Lamey then left and rode around the neighborhood looking for a suspect. He never found one.
Officer Gary Larson of the Bayou La Batre Police Department went to the victim's house on the night in question. When he arrived, the victim told him she had been raped. Larson recovered a belt, comb and hat from the victim's bedroom. He identified these as the same items which he delivered to the appellant some six hours earlier when he released this appellant from jail on a public intoxication charge. Larson also found a half-pint whiskey bottle at the scene.
Larson was told the appellant was the suspect. His attempts to locate the appellant were unsuccessful.
The victim testified that Cindy McNeilly had been hired to stay with her on the night of April 29, 1983 because she had recently undergone surgery. McNeilly's cousin, Janey Beritich, was also staying there that night.
Before retiring to go to bed that night around 9:00 p.m., the victim locked all the doors. At some point, she woke up and saw the appellant standing over her. He said, "I was told you needed a good fucking." (R. 79-80) The victim began screaming and the appellant told her to shut up or he would kill her. The appellant forced the victim to have sexual intercourse with him and then left. The victim said the appellant smelled of alcohol and she had not seen him previously.
Officer William Parker of the Bayou La Batre Police Department testified that he went to the jail to obtain blood samples from the appellant after he had been brought back from Alaska. While there, he and the appellant talked generally. At some point, the appellant asked why blood samples were being taken and Parker replied that the samples were for comparison purposes. The appellant then stated, "Well, there is no doubt as whether I had sex with her or not because I have had sex with her on several occasions." (R. 89-90) The appellant was immediately advised of his "Miranda rights."
Janey Beritich testified that she was staying at the victim's house on the night in question and helping Cindy McNeilly to take care of the victim following her surgery. That night, the appellant came over to the victim's house after the victim had gone to bed. The appellant and McNeilly drank some whiskey and then went into a bedroom and had sex.
Beritich became scared and asked McNeilly to make the appellant leave. Beritich and McNeilly then walked outside. They saw the victim with a broom and heard her tell the appellant to leave her alone. The two then called the police.
Jennie West, the appellant's mother, testified that the appellant often became violent when he was drinking. She stated that he would do bad things when he was drunk and then not remember doing them. She cited several instances of this behavior.
Dr. Claude Brown, a psychiatrist, examined the appellant and determined he suffered from a condition called pathological intoxication. He stated the appellant had a tendency to over-ingest alcohol. Furthermore, he found the appellant had the tendency to become intoxicated after drinking small amounts of alcohol and that alcohol caused exaggerated behavioral changes in the appellant. The appellant also suffered from amnesia concerning the periods when he was drunk.
Brown stated that, during these behavioral changes caused by the appellant's alcohol ingestion, the appellant would not be able to conform his conduct to the requirements of law or appreciate the criminality of his conduct. However, he felt the appellant would have the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct when he was not drinking.
Brown stated that he believed the appellant was suffering from pathological intoxication, a mental illness which was settled and fixed in the appellant.
Dr. C. Van Rosen, a psychologist, testified that, in his opinion, the appellant suffered from several mental illnesses, including possibly pathological intoxication. He stated that the appellant would have lacked the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct on the night in question if he ingested alcohol and did, indeed, suffer from "pathological intoxication."
Craig Francis, Hal Collin West and Ora Lee Drayton all testified that the appellant's personality changed dramatically when he drank. They each told of an incident in which the appellant exhibited bizarre behavior while he was drinking and then could not remember these incidents.
The appellant testified that he went over to the victim's house after receiving a call from McNeilly. He brought over some whiskey and he and McNeilly drank and had sex. He stated that he does not remember anything after this point until the next afternoon.
That day, McNeilly came over to his house and told him that he had gone crazy the night before and had raped a woman. The appellant got scared and left town when McNeilly told him the police were looking for him.
The appellant testified that he had never seen the victim before and could not remember raping her. However, he admitted that the hat found in the victim's bedroom belonged to him. The appellant also stated that he continued to drink even after he heard stories of his behavior while he was drinking.
On rebuttal, Dr. Harry Albert McClaren testified for the State. McClaren stated that, in his opinion, the appellant was not suffering from "pathological intoxication." He surmised that the appellant suffered an alcoholic blackout on the night in question due to excessive consumption of alcohol. McClaren felt that the appellant knew right from wrong and could appreciate the criminality of his conduct on the night of April 29, 1983. He stated that the appellant's consumption of alcohol was voluntary and that he could have refrained from drinking that night.
Cindy McNeilly testified that she called the appellant and asked him to come to the victim's house on the night in question. The victim did not know the appellant was coming to her house. When the appellant arrived, he and McNeilly had sexual intercourse. McNeilly left the house when the appellant told her he was going into the victim's bedroom and "fuck" her. McNeilly testified that the appellant was drunk.
The appellant contends his motion for new trial should have been granted based on his objections to the trial court's oral charge on the law of intoxication as it relates to the defense of insanity.
Jackson v. State, 412 So.2d 302, 308 (Ala.Cr.App.1982).
Our review of the entire oral charge convinces us that the trial court fully and accurately instructed the jury on the law concerning intoxication and insanity. See R. 336-42.
The instruction substantially followed the language in § 13A-3-1, Code of Alabama 1975 () and § 13A-3-2, Code of Alabama 1975 (on intoxication) as well as included language from relevant case law. See § 12-16-13, Code of Alabama 1975.
The following was included in the court's oral charge. (R. 342) This statement effectively sets out the interplay between the law of intoxication and insanity. See Lister v. State, 437 So.2d 622 (Ala.Cr.App.1983).
Thus, the above-quoted statement, when taken in conjunction with the rest of the court's oral charge, allows us to conclude that there was no error in the court's instructions on intoxication and insanity. The appellant's motion for new trial was correctly denied.
During closing argument, the following remark was made by the prosecutor: "If we let this man go, every defendant that comes into the court charged with rape in the City of Mobile County is going to say, 'I am a whacko.' " (R. 334) Defense counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Jenkins v. Allen
- Jenkins v. State
-
Edwards v. State
...inquiry was reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from appellant. See also our application of Innis in West v. State, 511 So.2d 258 (Ala.Cr.App.1987). incriminating response was the product of words or actions on the par......
- State v. Carruth