Woods v. State

12 Citing cases

  1. Koppersmith v. State

    742 So. 2d 206 (Ala. Crim. App. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    '"Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986) (quotingPhelps v. State, 435 So.2d 158, 163-64 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983)). Section 13A-6-3(a), Ala. Code 1975, provides that a person commits the crime of manslaughter if he recklessly causes the death of another person.

  2. Isom v. State

    497 So. 2d 208 (Ala. Crim. App. 1986)   Cited 31 times

    Silvey v. State, 485 So.2d 790, 793 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), quoting Phelps v. State, 435 So.2d 158, 163 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). "`The only difference between manslaughter under ยง 13A-6-3 (a)(1) [Alabama Code (1975)] and criminally negligent homicide is the difference between recklessness and criminal negligence. . . . The reckless actor is aware of the risk and disregards it; the negligent actor is not aware of the risk but should have been aware of it.'" Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), quoting C. Torcia, 1 Wharton's Criminal Law Section 27 (14th ed. 1978). In Woods, supra, the factual circumstances surrounding the murder were similar to those in the case at bar.

  3. Connally v. State

    33 So. 3d 618 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007)   Cited 12 times

    Connally pleaded in his petition specific facts regarding the crime and his participation in it โ€” he alleged that playful banter between him and his friend, Chad Boyette, escalated into a fight; that during the fight the victim, David Bibby, knocked him to the floor; that he reacted to being knocked down by hitting Bibby in the face four times; that he did not intend to hurt or kill Bibby; and that he did not perceive the risk that he would kill Bibby by punching him in the face. These facts indicate that, had he gone to trial, Connally may have been entitled to a jury instruction on criminally negligent homicide, see Koppersmith v. State, 742 So.2d 206 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999), and Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986), and were sufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements in Rule 32.3 and Rule 32.6(b). Moreover, these facts were unrefuted by the State and, thus, as noted above, must be accepted as true.

  4. Berry v. State

    698 So. 2d 225 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)   Cited 9 times
    Recognizing that an underlying sentence may be valid although โ€˜the manner in which the trial court split the sentenceโ€™ is illegal

    Criminally negligent homicide occurs when the accused fails to perceive a substantial or unjustifiable risk when acting in a manner that results in the death of another person; the conduct forming the basis of criminally negligent homicide is necessarily unintentional. See, ยง 13A-6-4, Ala. Code, 1975; Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986). As this court stated recently in Marshall v. State, 668 So.2d 891 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), the accused's action of drawing a gun eradicates the possibility that a subsequent shooting of that gun was unintentional and that the resulting death was criminally negligent homicide.

  5. McCollum v. State

    678 So. 2d 1210 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996)   Cited 16 times

    Conversely, the offense of criminally negligent homicide is based upon the notion that the accused failed to perceive a substantial or unjustifiable risk when acting in a manner that killed another person; the conduct forming the basis of criminally negligent homicide is necessarily unintentional. See, ยง 13A-6-4, Ala. Code, 1975; Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986). In addition, the Alabama legislature has already rejected the "imperfect defense" doctrine, which would allow a finding that a person was partly excused from an intentional or reckless killing because he acted under the mistaken belief that his action was justified due to self-defense, necessity, or the like.

  6. Buskey v. State

    650 So. 2d 605 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 20 times
    In Buskey v. State, 650 So.2d 605 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994), the defendant, appealing his conviction for murder, argued that the trial court had erred in not charging the jury on the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide.

    " ' " Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986), quoting Phelps v. State, supra." Lovell v. State, 521 So.2d 1346, 1350-51 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987).

  7. Jordan v. State

    629 So. 2d 738 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    Holding expert's testimony on gang practices relevant to show defendant's motive for committing charged crimes was to ascend in rank within gang

    The trial court may properly refuse to charge the jury on a lesser included offense when it is clear that no evidence brings the offense within the definition of the lesser offense, or when the requested charge would have a tendency to mislead or confuse the jury. Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986). In this case, there was no dispute that the antique shotgun was stolen during the burglary as to which the appellant requested the instruction on third degree burglary.

  8. Haney v. State

    603 So. 2d 368 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 210 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that application of aggravating factors justified even though defendant was not present when killing occurred because defendant fulfilled Tison factors

    A person acts with criminal negligence when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); ยงยง 13A-2-2(4) and -6-4(a). There is obviously no evidence to support a reasonable theory of criminally negligent homicide.

  9. Dees v. State

    575 So. 2d 1225 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 6 times

    Chavers v. State, 361 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Ala. 1978). Accord Hill v. State, 485 So.2d 808, 809 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986); Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243, 1245 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). This is true even if the evidence supporting the position is "weak or doubtful in credibility."

  10. Kitsos v. State

    574 So. 2d 979 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 10 times

    "Negligence 'is distinguished from acting purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly in that it does not involve a state of awareness. It is the case where the actor creates inadvertently a risk of which he ought to be aware, considering its nature and degree, the nature and purpose of his conduct and the care that would be exercised by a reasonable person in his situation.' Commentary to Section 13A-6-4."Phelps, 435 So.2d at 164, quoted in Woods v. State, 485 So.2d 1243, 1245-46 (Ala.Cr.App. 1986). See also Jones v. State, 514 So.2d 1060, 1065 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 514 So.2d 1068 (Ala. 1987).