Maples v. State3/31/1999
emphasized that "in the early morning hours of August 2, 1995, when he put his head in his hands and said when I saw the police cars, 'Thank God it's finally over. I thought about this every night. Thank God it's finally over.'" (R. 3281-82.) The prosecutor's comments were a response to the defense's statements and insinuations that the appellant's confession showed his remorsefulness about the murders. The prosecutor's statements were reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence presented at trial, the appellant's statements to the police and to the psychologist, and the appellant's actions between the time of the murders and the time of his arrest. Furthermore, the prosecutor's statement, "Did he tell you about what a bad impact these two killings had on him since?," when read in context, does not refer, as the appellant argues, to his silence since the time he made the videotaped statement to police. Rather, it refers to the appellant's lack of remorse evidenced in his statements to police after the murders. Counsel is "'allowed wide latitude in drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence in closing arguments.'" Jones v. State, 600 So.2d 424, 425 (Ala. Cr. App. 1992) (quoting Cross v. State, 536 So.2d 155, 160 (Ala. Cr. App. 1998)). Accordingly, the prosecutor's statements do not rise to the level of plain error. See Frazier v. State, [Ms. CR-95-2222, January 15, 1999] ___ So.2d ___ (Ala. Cr. App. 1999); Dobyne, supra; Taylor v. State, 666 So.2d 36, 55 (Ala. Cr. App.), opinion extended on return to remand, 666 So.2d 71 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994), aff'd, 666 So.2d 73 (Ala. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1120, 116 S.Ct. 928, 133 L.Ed.2d 856 (1996).
III.
The appellant's third argument is that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on intoxication and manslaughter because there was evidence that he was using drugs and alcohol on the day of the murders. He did not request instructions on intoxication and manslaughter, and he did not object when the trial court did not give such charges. Therefore, we review this claim for plain error. Rule 45A, Ala. R. App. P.
The legislature has defined "intoxicated" to include "a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body." §13A-3-2(e)(1), Ala. Code 1975. Thus, evidence of ingestion of alcohol or drugs, standing alone, is insufficient to support a charge on intoxication. In addition, there must be evidence that the ingestion caused a disturbance of the person's mental or physical capacities and that that mental or physical disturbance existed at the time the offense was committed. This interpretation is borne out by our decision in Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1027 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994), aff'd, 683 So.2d 1042 (Ala. 1996), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 1438, 137 L.Ed.2d 545 (1997), in which we held:
"In this case, however, there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated. Although there was evidence that the appellant had been drinking beer on the day of the robbery-murder, there was no evidence concerning the quantity of beer he consumed that day at the time of the murder. Evidence that someone was drinking an alcoholic beverage is not evidence that that person was intoxicated. There was no 'reasonable theory' to support an instruction on intoxication because there was no evidence of intoxication. The court did not err in not instructing the jury on intoxication and manslaughter where there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated at the time the robbery-murder occurred."
683 So.2d at 1037 (emphasis added). Furthermore, instructions on intoxication and manslaughter are not required when they would be inconsistent with the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|