Luschen v. State

284 So. 2d 282, 51 Ala. App. 255, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1147
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
DecidedOctober 16, 1973
Docket8 Div. 201
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 284 So. 2d 282 (Luschen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Luschen v. State, 284 So. 2d 282, 51 Ala. App. 255, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1147 (Ala. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

On September 30, 1971, appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and his punishment fixed at death. The record came here on automatic appeal. It was submitted on briefs in this Court on April 25, 1972, and, subsequently assigned to one of the circuit judges to prepare an opinion. The record was returned to this Court on September 11, 1973, sans an opinion.

Appellant was represented in the trial court by appointed counsel who represents him on appeal.

Appellant was jointly indicted with Randall A. Shields for killing Robert Marlin Caneer, Jr., by stabbing him with a knife. A severance was granted and appellant was put to trial. At arraignment he entered two pleas: (1) not guilty, and (2) not guilty by reason of insanity.

On August 10, 1971, Honorable David R. Archer, one of the circuit judges of Madison County signed an order transferring appellant to Bryce Hospital to be examined by a commission of three qualified doctors to determine his sanity. On September 8, 1971, Judge Archer signed another order directing the sheriff to obtain custody of appellant from Bryce Hospital and return him to the Madison County jail and there confine him until released by legal process.

On the early morning of May 5, 1971, the deceased was found in a ditch on a public highway in Madison County wrapped in a sheet and blanket. He had thirty-three (33) knife wounds in his body. Some of the knife wounds were in his back, some in his chest, and others on both arms. According to an Assistant State Toxicologist, the cause of death was “hemorrhage produced by multiple and many stab wounds to the body, among which were injuries to the lungs and other major organs of the abdomen, including the liver and mesentery.” Several photographs showing the various stab wounds were introduced in evidence over objections of appellant that they would inflame the jury and were highly prejudicial.

According to the evidence the deceased was living in an apartment with four other young men. He was not gainfully employed. In 1969 he was expelled from school because he wore long hair. He was a known drug pusher as well as a drug addict. In the beginning he dealt with marihuana, LSD and mescaline. Later, and at the time of his death, he sold and took heroin.

On the night of May 4, 1971, preceding his death on May 5, the deceased sold a fifteen-dollar ($15.00) bag of heroin to Randall Shields and one Ray Young. Shields and Young split the heroin and “shot it up”. All of this took place at the apartment where the deceased lived with the other boys. At this time the deceased also took a shot of heroin. He took three or four shots of heroin during the evening. Shields and Young left the apartment in Shields’ car and went to Young’s apartment. The deceased followed on his motorcycle. When they reached Young’s apartment, Young and his wife had an ar *258 gument. Young didn’t get the best of the argument and decided to drive away. He got in his own car and after driving a short distance he lost control of the car. The door flew open and he fell out. He was carried to the hospital by his wife and Mrs. Shields, the wife of the co-defendant, in Shields’ car. According to Young he could not recall the events of the night before except, vaguely, the argument with his wife. Shields and the deceased remained at Young’s apartment. It was at this apartment that the killing occurred.

Around 1:30 A.M. on May 5, 1971, Mrs. Shields returned to her apartment to get some fresh clothes and her purse. Appellant and Shields were there. Appellant said to Mrs. Shields, “You haven’t seen me. You don’t know me, and tell no one you saw me here today.” Mrs. Shields left and went over to the Young apartment to get Mrs. Young’s purse and some clothes for Mr. Young. When she arrived she found the deceased at the Young apartment. He was sitting on the couch in the livingroom and had the stereo playing. She looked on the coffee table and saw three or four open plastic bags and it appeared that someone had just “shot up” some heroin. This was the last time she saw Bobby Caneer alive. She left and returned to the hospital.

A search warrant was issued to search the Young apartment. This warrant was served on Young at the hospital and Young left the hospital with the police officer and a search of his apartment was conducted • by several officers and Mr. Vann Pruitt, Assistant State Toxicologist. Blood stains were found on the couch in the livingroom, also on the floor, the walls, chairs, furniture, television set and on the inside of the back door. They found bloody towels and paper towels. An analysis of these blood stains was made and they were found to be Type O. The blood sample taken from the body of the deceased was also Type O.

The co-defendant, Randall A. Shields, appeared in court with his own attorney, Honorable Glenn Manning. Mr. Manning made the following statement in open court out of the presence of the jury:

“Randall Shields, your Honor, will waive or will testify as to any issues directly related to the charge under consideration at this time that is, the charge of homicide against Mr. Gary Luschen. He will not waive his privileges against self-incrimination as to any collateral issues, as to matters or things that might show the commission of some other crime than homicide, such as possession of drugs, something that is not related to this particular case.”

Thereafter the following occurred:

“THE COURT: All right.
“MR. LOFTIN: If he is asked those questions, will you interpose an objection?
“MR. MANNING: We certainly will.
“THE COURT: Mr. Manning, do you propose to be in the courtroom while your client is on the stand ?
“MR. MANNING: Yes, sir.
“THE COURT: And he understands his rights? You have explained them to him?
“MR. MANNING: Yes, sir.”

As a witness for the state, Mr. Shields testified, in substance, that he was nineteen years of age and that on May 4, 1971, he lived in Apartment Number 2 on Minor Street; that he had known appellant about two months prior to May 4 and had known the deceased, Bobby Caneer, for several years; that on the night of May 4, he and Ray Young went to Caneer’s residence for the purpose of buying heroin. During all of the years he had known Caneer, he had the reputation of being a dope or heroin dealer; that he had purchased dope from Caneer at least twenty times. Ray Young actually bought the pack of heroin from Caneer and they split it. Each used a syringe and needle and injected themselves.

*259 Shields and Young stayed at Caneer’s residence about thirty minutes after injecting themselves. Young offered Caneer a place to stay for the night. They left in Shields’ car to go to Young’s apartment. Caneer followed on his motorcycle. Upon arriving at Young’s apartment, Young and his wife argued and Young got in his car and drove away. About a half block from home, he wrecked his car and was carried to the hospital by Mrs. Young and Mrs. Shields in Mr. Shields’ car. Shields and Caneer stayed at the Young apartment and listened to music.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Russell v. State
272 So. 3d 1134 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2017)
Shanklin v. State
187 So. 3d 734 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2014)
McMillan v. State
139 So. 3d 184 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2010)
Dobson v. Dobson
821 So. 2d 1219 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
Burgess v. State
827 So. 2d 134 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1998)
Hatfield v. Continental Imports Inc.
5 Pa. D. & C.4th 99 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1989)
Hallford v. State
548 So. 2d 526 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1988)
Jolly v. State
395 So. 2d 1135 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1981)
Morrison v. State
398 So. 2d 730 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1979)
Bailey v. State
375 So. 2d 1278 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1979)
Watters v. State
369 So. 2d 1262 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1978)
Williamson v. State
370 So. 2d 1054 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1978)
Johnson v. State
355 So. 2d 1160 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1978)
Holt v. State
372 So. 2d 364 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1977)
Rainer v. State
342 So. 2d 1348 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1977)
Borden v. State
337 So. 2d 1388 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Pike v. State
340 So. 2d 865 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Hill v. State
328 So. 2d 644 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Cooper v. State
331 So. 2d 752 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Houston v. State
321 So. 2d 261 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
284 So. 2d 282, 51 Ala. App. 255, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luschen-v-state-alacrimapp-1973.