Caseflicks

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama • 1987

King v. State

505 So. 2d 403 | 1987 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4623

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that deliberately firing at an occupied moving car on an interstate can constitute reckless murder because the act creates a grave, unjustifiable danger to human life generally, even if the shooter claims to have targeted only the vehicle's tires.

Background

Christopher Doyle King and a companion went to the same Birmingham nightclub as Dwight Lee Reeves and Reeves's cousin, Rodney Dunnaway. At the club, King and Reeves bumped into one another and exchanged words. Later, Dunnaway drove Reeves home on the interstate, with Reeves in the front passenger seat.

King, driving a blue pickup truck, recognized Reeves in Dunnaway's car and followed it for several miles. He tailgated the car and flashed his lights while Dunnaway repeatedly slowed down in an attempt to let the truck pass. Near the 31st Street exit, King pulled alongside the car, drew a .38-caliber pistol, and fired two or three shots. The shots flattened the rear tires, and one bullet entered the passenger-side window and struck Reeves in the head. Reeves died several hours later. Neither Reeves nor Dunnaway was armed, and the evidence showed no provocation for the shooting.

King went home, did not report the incident, gave conflicting accounts afterward, denied knowledge of the incident when arrested, and disposed of the pistol. His passenger testified that King had said he intended to "mess with them and shoot the tires out," and afterward said he might have "messed up" or shot out the window.

A jury found King guilty of reckless murder under Alabama Code § 13A-6-2(a)(2), rather than intentional murder under the indictment's second count. The trial court sentenced him to twenty years' imprisonment and imposed a $1,000 payment to the Alabama Crime Victims Compensation Fund. King challenged the sufficiency of the evidence through a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for new trial, both of which the trial court denied.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the State presented sufficient evidence that King acted with the extreme indifference to human life generally required for reckless murder under § 13A-6-2(a)(2).

Holding

Yes. The evidence permitted the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that King recklessly created a grave risk of death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life generally.

Reasoning

Reckless murder under § 13A-6-2(a)(2) is Alabama's version of depraved-heart or universal-malice murder. Unlike intentional murder, it does not require a deliberate purpose to kill a particular person. Instead, it requires reckless conduct that creates a grave or very high risk of death and manifests extreme indifference to human life generally.

A person acts recklessly when aware of and consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and the disregard must be a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. The required risk for reckless murder is more than ordinary unreasonableness or even a merely high risk; it is a very high and unjustifiable homicidal danger, assessed in light of what the defendant knew about the surrounding circumstances.

The court's precedents and the authorities it discussed treat firing into occupied places or vehicles as paradigmatic depraved-heart conduct. Shooting into an occupied house, a moving train, or a moving automobile exposes persons to a potentially lethal danger even if the shooter claims not to have intended to kill a particular occupant.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence showed that King deliberately fired several shots at a moving, occupied automobile on an interstate highway without excuse or provocation. He knew both Dunnaway and Reeves were in the car, yet shot while traveling at highway speed, striking the tires and sending a bullet through the passenger-side window. The shooting endangered not only Reeves, but Dunnaway and potentially other interstate users.

King's statements and post-shooting conduct reinforced the jury's finding that he consciously disregarded the danger. Although he said he intended to shoot out the tires, shooting at a moving car on an interstate created an obviously grave risk that occupants would be struck or that the vehicle would crash. His attempt to conceal the weapon and his false denials further supported the conclusion that the conduct was unjustifiable and undertaken with total disregard for public safety.

Because legal evidence supported a fair inference that King recklessly engaged in conduct creating a very great risk of death and manifested extreme indifference to human life generally, the trial court correctly denied both the motion for judgment of acquittal and the motion for new trial.