Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

431 So. 2d 1340

Ex Parte McCormack

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided April 8, 1983

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1983-04-08

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"The evidence in this case, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, reveals that the defendant's acts and omissions were specifically directed at a particular victim and no other. "The State presented no evidence that the defendant engaged in conduct `under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life' for, while the defendant's conduct did indeed evidence an extreme indifference to the life of her child, there was nothing to show that the conduct displayed an extreme indifference to human life generally. Although the defendant's conduct created a grave risk of death to another and thereby caused the death of that person, the acts of the defendant were aimed at the particular victim and, no other. Not only did the defendant's conduct create a grave risk of death to only her daughter and no other, but the defendant's actions (or inactions) were directed specifically against the young infant. F. Wharton, The Law of Homicide (3rd ed. 1907) at Section 129. This evidence does not support a conviction of murder as charged under Section 13A-6-2 (a)(2)."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Dunaway v. State, Killingsworth v. State

“"I'd like to now charge you as to the specific law dealing with the specific offense that we're here for, that's raised in this indictment. The offense that's raised in this two count indictment states the elements of murder and I'd like to tell you and charge you as to the applicable law of the offense of murder. A person commits the crime of murder one, if he causes the death of another person and in performing the act or acts which caused the death of that person, he or she intends to kill that person or if under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself and thereby causes the death of another person. So to sustain the charge of murder in this case, the State by the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime. First, that Beth Marie Jenkins, the alleged victim in this case, is dead. Secondly, that the Defendant, Suzie Nell Hutto, caused the death of Beth Marie Jenkins, that is that she died as a result of the reckless operation of a motor vehicle by the Defendant. And thirdly, that in committing the acts which caused the death of Beth Marie Jenkins, the Defendant acted with intent or thirdly, that under the circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, the Defendant acted recklessly in engaging in conduct which created a grave risk of death to a person other than herself and which in fact caused”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 465 So. 2d 1211 - Hutto v. State

Relies on 413 So. 2d 1169 - Northington v. State · 431 So. 2d 1336 - McCormack v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-04-08

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2010

14 state decisions

801983199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2Certiorari was granted to determine whether the instant decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with the decision of that court in Northington v. State, Ala. Crim.App.,413 So.2d 1169 (1981).

¶3The petitioner was tried under a multi-count indictment which charged, inter alia, murder in violation of Code of 1975, §13A-6-2, in that he

¶4 "did recklessly engage in conduct which manifested extreme indifference to human life and created a grave risk of death to a person other than the said David McCormack [the petitioner] and did thereby cause the death of Charles Newsome by striking Charles Newsome with a yard rake while the said Charles Newsome was riding a bicycle thereby causing the said Charles Newsome to swerve into the path of a vehicle being driven by Mike Chaney, which said vehicle struck the said Charles Newsome."

¶5A motion to quash this count was made by the defendant at the close of the evidence, and denied. Following conviction and sentence, petitioner again raised the issue of the propriety of his conviction under § 13A-6-2.

¶6In Northington, supra, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a charge of murder under § 13-6-2 (a)(2) (reckless homicide manifesting extreme indifference to human life) embraced "those cases where a person has no deliberate intent to kill or injure any particular individual. . . . `The element of "extreme indifference to human life," by definition does not address itself to the life of the victim, but to human life generally.' . . ." That court then observed that "[t]he evidence in this [Northington] case, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, reveals that the defendant's acts and omissions were specifically directed at a particular victim and no other."

¶7Under the facts found by the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case, we reach the same conclusion as that court did inNorthington. The State of Alabama presented no evidence that this petitioner engaged in conduct "manifesting extreme indifference to human life generally." Thus, it was error for the trial court to submit Count I to the jury. For that reason the petitioner is entitled to a new trial.

¶8Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals,431 So.2d 1336, is reversed and this cause is remanded to that court for an order not inconsistent with this opinion.

¶9REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶10All the Justices concur.

/431/so2d/1340 · .json · Public domain