108 So. 3d 531
Ala. Crim. App.2012Background
- Murphy was indicted on criminal mischief in the first degree, second-degree burglary, making a terrorist threat, and five counts of attempted murder.
- Murphy sought youthful-offender status; the circuit court denied it after a hearing.
- Murphy was convicted of criminal mischief, second-degree burglary, making a terrorist threat, and one count of attempted murder (as to Herring), with sentences to run consecutively and fines imposed.
- PMF (PrimeCare) attack: Murphy, armed with an M14 rifle, forcibly entered PrimeCare in Dothan, fired inside, caused extensive property damage, and terrorized patients and staff.
- During the events, Murphy engaged in a three-hour police standoff after negotiations with officers; a handgun, ammunition, and knife were found on him.
- Experts testified regarding Murphy’s mental state; one side asserted drug-induced delirium affecting judgment, the other asserted competency and ability to form intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youthful-offender preservation | Murphy preserved the issue; denial was arbitrary. | Failure to object bars review; discretion supports denial. | Discretionary denial affirmed; even if preserved, no abuse shown. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted murder | State proved specific intent to kill Herring. | Insufficient evidence of specific intent to murder any target. | Insufficient evidence; acquittal on attempted murder reversed as to that count. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree burglary | Unlawful remaining and intent inferred from evidence. | Intoxication/psychosis negates intent to commit a felony. | Sufficient evidence supported unlawful remaining and intent; burglary preserved. |
| Jury instruction on unlawful remaining | Charge correctly stated law under Davis guidance. | Charge misstates law; illegal to infer unlawful remaining from a shooting alone. | Charge upheld; harmless error found; no reversible prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 737 So.2d 480 (Ala. 1999) (unlawful remaining can be inferred from revocation of license by respondent’s reaction)
- Rivers v. State, 624 So.2d 211 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993) (intent may be inferred from material evidence)
- Gavin v. State, 891 So.2d 907 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Hammonds v. State, 7 So.3d 1055 (Ala. 2008) (inconsistent verdicts; sufficiency governs up to evidence)
- Ex parte Bankston, 358 So.2d 1040 (Ala. 1978) (standard for sufficiency review; appellate role)
- Ward v. State, 610 So.2d 1190 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992) (sufficiency standard for evidence review)