Worthington v. State
Decision Date | 09 September 1994 |
Citation | 652 So.2d 790 |
Parties | Miguel Rudy WORTHINGTON v. STATE. CR 93-825. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William Willingham, Talladega, for appellant.
James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Steve Willoughby, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Miguel Rudy Worthington, the appellant, was convicted of the intentional murder of David Marler and was sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment. He raises six issues on this direct appeal from that conviction.
The appellant asserts that the statements he made to the arresting officer prior to the time he was advised of his Miranda 1 rights were improperly admitted into evidence. Those comments directed the police to the bloodstained clothes worn by the appellant on November 13, 1992, during the commission of the murder.
United States v. Edwards, 885 F.2d 377, 387 (7th Cir.1989). See also Crawford v. State, 479 So.2d 1349, 1352 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) (); United States v. Lawrence, 952 F.2d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.) () , cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1011, 112 S.Ct. 1777, 118 L.Ed.2d 434 (1992).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 478, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See also Britton v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.1991). The appellant's statement and the bloodstained clothes found as a result of the appellant's statement were admissible evidence.
The appellant argues that the State failed to present a prima facie case of murder. He contends that the State's case was based solely on circumstantial evidence too weak to uphold a conviction, because, he says, the only testimony that connected the appellant with the murder was the testimony of the victim's brother, William Marler, who the appellant alleges was intoxicated at the time of the incident; the State did not produce a murder weapon; and the autopsy did not prove that the victim's death resulted from injuries received in a stabbing. Additionally, the appellant contends that the evidence established that he acted in self-defense.
In Harris v. State, 649 So.2d 1315, 1321-22 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), this Court set forth the legal principles governing the review of a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. Applying those principles in this case, we find that the appellant's conviction is supported by considerable evidence, both direct and circumstantial. An eyewitness (the brother of the victim) identified the appellant as the person whom he saw repeatedly stabbing the victim, who was unarmed, with a knife. The credibility of that witness was a question for the jury. The appellant's sister-in-law testified that the appellant confided that "he had gotten into a fight" and that he "thought he cut" the victim. R. 327. Corporal Daniels testified as to incriminating statements made by the appellant.
Additionally, there was evidence that the appellant was at the scene of the murder and that he and the victim had been arguing. Pants belonging to the appellant were stained with the blood of the same type as that of the victim. The victim suffered several cut and stab wounds consistent with wounds caused by a knife. Some wounds sustained by the victim appeared to be defensive wounds.
Bufford v. State, 382 So.2d 1162, 1170 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 1175 (Ala.1980). The appellant's argument that the State failed to present a prima facie case of intentional murder is without merit.
The appellant attempted to portray the victim to the jury as drunk and aggressive on the night of the homicide. The appellant testified that the victim threatened him. However, the appellant could not remember exactly what occurred that night. He testified:
______
"... R. 394, 389.
" ' ' " Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 160, 162 (Ala.Cr.App.1993). " ' ' " Brooks v. State, 630 So.2d 160, 162 (Ala.Cr.App.1993).
The question of the appellant's guilt has been decided by a jury, which apparently rejected the appellant's claim that he was acting in self-defense when he killed the victim. "When the jury's verdict is supported by the evidence, this court's function is not to reweigh the evidence or [to] substitute its judgment for that of the jury." Gayle v. State, 616 So.2d 378, 380 (Ala.Cr.App.1993).
The appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting State's rebuttal witness Steven David Woodle to testify regarding an altercation he had had with the appellant during which the appellant used a knife as a weapon. The trial court ruled that the testimony had already been "testified to." R. 473. Rowe v. State, 522 So.2d 328, 330 (Ala.Cr.App.1988).
During appellant's cross-examination of Deputy Mike McBurnett, the appellant introduced a copy of the police "radio log" for October 8, 1992. McBurnett explained that the log reflected that on October 8, Anita Anglin Worthington, the appellant's wife, had telephoned the police complaining that there was a disturbance at the victim's residence and that a weapon was involved. R. 205. At the appellant's request, the police log was admitted into evidence. R. 204.
The appellant testified on direct examination that on October 8, 1992, he had had an altercation with the victim at a party at the victim's house and that Billy Anglin (the appellant's brother-in-law) had had to restrain the victim to prevent the victim from attacking the appellant. R. 397-99. On cross-examination, the appellant testified that later the same evening someone who had been at the party "beat up" Billy Anglin. R. 401. The defense did not object to the State's asking the appellant if he had "already pulled a knife ... and slash[ed] it at ... David [Wood...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...Maples v. State, 758 So.2d at 42-43, quoting Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126, 1132 (Ala.1998), quoting in turn Worthington v. State, 652 So.2d 790, 792-93 (Ala.Crim. App.1994). Because Brown was spontaneously volunteering information, his statements do not fall within the Miranda rule and we......
-
Maples v. State
...v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).'" Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126, 1132 (Ala. 1998) (quoting Worthington v. State, 652 So.2d 790, 792-93 (Ala.Cr.App.1994)). The appellant's arguments that he did not voluntarily make the statements to Officer Mason are without merit. Mason t......
-
Wilson v. State
...motion, she did not preserve it for appellate review. See Perry v. State, 741 So.2d 467 (Ala.Crim. App.1999); Worthington v. State, 652 So.2d 790 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). The majority erroneously states that the appellant's argument is properly before this court because although it "is not befo......
-
Gavin v. State
...v. State, 631 So.2d 1073, 1078 (Ala.Cr.App.1993); Williams v. State, 601 So.2d 1062, 1072 (Ala.Cr.App.1991)." Worthington v. State, 652 So.2d 790, 792-93 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). Gavin does not argue that his statement was barred by Miranda or that it was otherwise involuntary, and the record r......