Opinion ID: 1712035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Felony Murder and Intentional Murder

Text: McWhorter also argues that the trial court should have charged the jury on felony murder and intentional murder. He makes a two-pronged argument. First, he contends that the evidence supports a felony-murder theory because, he argues, he was a teenager and a jury could have reasonably concluded that, even if there was discussion of killing, he did not seriously believe that the victim would be killed. He argues that his statement supports the theory that Minor killed the victim and that McWhorter was only an accomplice. McWhorter argues that he has presented evidence that supports a felony-murder theory. He states that he intended only to rob the victim, not to kill him, and that he never thought the victim would be killed. Second, he contends that his evidence of intoxication justified a charge on the lesser included offenses of felony murder and intentional murder.
Putting to one side for the moment the issue of intoxication, we see no reasonable theory that would have supported a charge on felony murder. The evidence showed that Casey McWhorter, Lee Williams, and Daniel Minor carefully planned and carried out the crime. They had planned the crime at least three weeks before they carried it out. In addition, McWhorter and Minor lay in wait for hours at the victim's house and made silencers for the weapons while they waited for him to arrive home. In addition, again putting to one side for the moment the issue of intoxication, we see no reasonable theory that would support a charge on the lesser included offense of intentional murder. As the Court of Criminal Appeals held, the evidence would support no theory on which the jury could have found an intentional murder but not a robbery. That court noted that McWhorter made no argument as to why the trial court should have charged the jury on intentional murder. Lee Williams had told McWhorter that the victim would have cashed his paycheck that day and therefore would have a large sum of money on his person and that, if McWhorter would kill him, McWhorter could have the money. In his statement, McWhorter said that Lee Williams told him that his father kept money on him at all times and that McWhorter and Minor could take the money for killing his father. In Ex parte Myers, 699 So.2d 1285, 1290-91 (Ala.1997), the defendant argued that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of felony murder because, he argued, the evidence showed that he intended to rob, not to kill, the victim. This Court held that the defendant was not entitled to a felony-murder instruction because he did not present any evidence indicating that he did not intend to kill the victim. Similarly, McWhorter presented no evidence indicating that he did not intend to kill the victim. In fact, there was testimony indicating that McWhorter had agreed to kill the victim in exchange for any money the victim would have on his person that night. The evidence shows that McWhorter intentionally and consciously planned to rob and murder the victim. Therefore, McWhorter was not entitled to an instruction on felony murder, and the trial court did not err in refusing to give such an instruction, unless to refuse it was error in light of the issue of intoxication.
While voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge, it can negate the specific intent necessary for an intentional murder, reducing the offense to manslaughter. McConnico v. State, 551 So.2d 424 (Ala.Crim.App.1988). Relying on Owen v. State, 611 So.2d 1126 (Ala. Crim.App.1992), for the proposition that a trial court commits reversible error by failing to instruct a jury on intoxication, McWhorter argues that if the crime involves specific intent and any evidence presented at trial indicates that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime, then the defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the lesser included crime of manslaughter. `While voluntary intoxication is never a defense to a criminal charge, it may negate the specific intent essential to a malicious killing and reduce it to manslaughter. § 13A-3-2, Code of Alabama (1975) (Commentary). `When the crime charged involves a specific intent, such as murder, and there is evidence of intoxication, the trial judge should instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter.' Gray v. State, 482 So.2d 1318, 1319 (Ala.Cr. App.1985). McNeill v. State, 496 So.2d 108, 109 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).' 551 So.2d at 426. However, to negate the specific intent required for a murder conviction, the degree of the accused's intoxication must amount to insanity.  Smith v. State, 756 So.2d 892, 906 (Ala. Crim.App.1997) (on return to remand). This Court, likewise, has held that the intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the charge, must amount to insanity. Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 120-21 (Ala.1991). See, also, Crosslin v. State, 446 So.2d 675 (Ala. Crim.App.1983). McWhorter argues that his case is similar to Ashley v. State, 651 So.2d 1096 (Ala.Crim.App.1994). In Ashley, the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed a capital-murder conviction because the trial court had erred in refusing to give a manslaughter instruction after a witness testified that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crime. Ashley's ex-girlfriend testified that she had seen him at a bar approximately two hours before the stabbing and that he looked like he was out of it and looked like he was on drugs. 651 So.2d at 1098. Another witness testified that Ashley looked high on the evening of the stabbing. Id. This case is distinguishable from Ashley. McWhorter did not produce testimony regarding his alleged intoxication. In fact, his voluntary unsworn statement was the only evidence presented at trial regarding his intoxication. Although the trial court informed the jury that it could not convict McWhorter of capital murder if it found no specific intent, the evidence showed that the crime was carefully planned and carried out. The Court of Criminal Appeals correctly compared this case to Hutcherson v. State . The court stated: In Hutcherson v. State, 677 So.2d 1174, 1175 (Ala.Cr.App.1994), the appellant had argued that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on manslaughter where the trial court had given the jury an instruction on intoxication. The appellant in Hutcherson also cited Fletcher v. State, [621 So.2d 1010 (Ala.Crim.App.1993)], in support of his argument. However, in Hutcherson, this Court held that it was not plain error for the trial court to fail to give a manslaughter charge when it had given a charge on intoxication. One of the reasons given for this determination was based on the evidence at trial-there had been no indication that the appellant was so intoxicated that he could not form the necessary intent, despite his statement that he had ingested drugs and alcohol before the murder. This Court stated: `[T]he evidence of the appellant's intoxication was the appellant's statement that he had taken five Valiums and had drunk alcohol before the murder. There is absolutely no evidence in the record that shows when prior to the murder these intoxicants were ingested. Also, the appellant's mother, who picked the appellant up on Moffatt Road after the murder, when asked if the appellant appeared intoxicated, stated that he looked real tired. The jury's finding that the appellant was not so intoxicated that he could not form the specific intent is supported by the evidence. `In the present case, the record contains no evidence either that defendant consumed an inordinate quantity of drugs or alcohol, or that his behavior actually demonstrated diminished capacity. Accordingly, the court committed no error in failing to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses based on defendant's failure to form a specific intent to commit the underlying felony. ` People v. Kaurish, 52 Cal.3d 648, 276 Cal.Rptr. 788, 813, 802 P.2d 278, 303 [(1990)], cert. denied, 502 U.S. 837, 112 S.Ct. 121, 116 L.Ed.2d 89 (1991).'  Hutcherson, supra, at 1198. 781 So.2d at 267. `[A] defendant is entitled to a charge on a lesser included offense if there is any reasonable theory from the evidence that would support the position,' Fletcher v. State, 621 So.2d 1010, 1019 (Ala.Crim. App.1993) (quoting Ex parte Oliver, 518 So.2d 705, 706 (Ala.1987)), regardless of how weak ... or doubtful in credibility the evidence concerning the offense. Chavers v. State, 361 So.2d 1106, 1107 (Ala.1978). A trial court should give a charge on voluntary intoxication if `there is an evidentiary foundation in the record sufficient for the jury to entertain a reasonable doubt on the element of intent.' Windsor v. State, 683 So.2d 1027, 1037 (Ala. Crim.App.1994) (quoting Coon v. State, 494 So.2d 184, 187 (Ala.Crim.App.1986)). In Windsor, the Court of Criminal Appeals found that there was no evidence that the appellant was intoxicated and that, although there was evidence that he had been drinking alcohol on the day of the murder, there was no evidence as to the quantity of alcohol consumed that day by the time of the murder. 683 So.2d at 1037. The court found that [t]here was no `reasonable theory' to support an instruction on intoxication because there was no evidence of intoxication. Id. The court held that the trial court did not err in not instructing the jury on intoxication and manslaughter, because there was no evidence indicating that the defendant was intoxicated when the crime occurred. The evidence offered by McWhorter as to his alleged intoxication was glaringly inconsistent with his own statement giving detailed descriptions of the events occurring at the crime scene. No evidence substantiated his claim to have been intoxicated at the time of the killing, and, indeed, the other evidence as to his condition at the time of the crime was totally consistent with the proposition that he was sober. We hold that McWhorter's self-serving statements suggesting he was intoxicated at the time of the killing, statements made in his internally inconsistent interview by Detective Maze, is, as a matter of law, insufficient to satisfy the rigorous standard of showing that the intoxication relied upon to negate the specific intent required for a murder conviction amounted to insanity. As previously noted, that standard is that the intoxication necessary to negate specific intent and, thus, reduce the charge, must amount to insanity. Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 121 (Ala.1991). Although the trial court refused to charge the jury on lesser included offenses, it charged the jury on voluntary intoxication. The trial court stated: I charge you, members of the jury, that if you find from the evidence that the Defendant was voluntarily intoxicated to the extent he could not form the necessary specific intent to rob Edward Lee Williams then you cannot convict the Defendant of capital murder. Because there was no substantial evidence indicating that at the time of the crime McWhorter was intoxicated to such a degree that the intoxication amounted to insanity, the trial court's voluntary-intoxication charge was neither prejudicial nor necessary. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that no reasonable theory would have supported a charge on the offense of intentional murder or felony murder. It found that the evidence presented at trial indicated either that McWhorter intentionally killed the victim in the course of a robbery or that he was not guilty. We hold that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on felony murder and intentional murder was not error.