Norton v. State

The fact that the defendant may have been somewhat intoxicated at the time of his custodial interview did not automatically render the evidence thereof inadmissible and some evidence showed that he made his statement knowingly and voluntarily.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

David Robert Norton appeals his convictions and sentences for malice murder, arson, criminal attempt to commit the crime of concealing the death of another, possession of a firearm by a first offender probationer, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, all in connection with the shooting death of Amy Ayers “Amy”.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Construed to support the verdicts, the evidence showed that Norton was Amy’s live-in boyfriend. David Ayers “David” was Amy’s ex-husband; they had two children together. In September or October 2007, Amy went to David’s house to discuss the children and spent the night there. On October 7, 2007, Norton sent David an email discussing the incident, and stating, “take this seriously and to heart. . . . that i do not want ANYONE sniffin around my girl.” Sic. On October 26, 2007, Amy told David that she was going to ask Norton to leave. On the morning of October 30, 2007, Amy’s son, Wesley Ayers, left the house for school; Amy and Norton were still there. When Wesley returned, there was smoke in the house and he called 911. After extinguishing a fire in an upstairs bedroom, a firefighter found Amy’s burned body on the floor; a roll of duct tape was nearby, a sheet was under the body, and the smoke detectors on the first and second floors of the house had been removed from the walls. Amy had been killed by a shotgun blast to the back of her skull; the shot was directed slightly upward from a distance of one foot or less. Two separate fires had been started in the bedroom: one originated on Amy’s body and the other in a chair. Debris tested positive for gasoline. A detective spoke to Norton by cell phone shortly after examining the scene; Norton refused to reveal his location and said that he knew Amy was dead.

Norton v. State

The fact that the defendant may have been somewhat intoxicated at the time of his custodial interview did not automatically render the evidence thereof inadmissible and some evidence showed that he made his statement knowingly and voluntarily.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report