Sharpe v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant's 911 call because he did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Theodore Fred Sharpe was convicted of malice murder in connection with the deaths of Herman “Rusty” Cadle and Stillson “Larry” Lawrence and was sentenced to two consecutive life terms.1 Appellant’s amended motion for new trial was denied, and he now appeals that decision. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and alleges trial court error in allowing an expert witness to express an opinion regarding an ultimate issue in the case, in excluding exculpatory evidence, in improperly charging the jury on the offense of arson, and in failing to give a complete charge on the form of the verdict. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.

1. Viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence shows that Cadle and Lawrence died in a fire that swept through their residence while they slept on the night of June 9, 2008. Appellant, who lived with the victims, and Celisa Hamilton were seen arguing at the residence immediately before the fire. A witness heard Hamilton yell that she was going to kill somebody and saw appellant exit through the front door with a flashlight and walk over to an area on the side of the residence where law enforcement later discovered multiple gas cans. Appellant reentered the residence with something in his hand and then stood in the front doorway with Hamilton. The witness observed them “throw something” followed by the eruption of flames in the front portion of the house at which time appellant and Hamilton fled. Appellant later returned to the scene of the fire as firefighters were trying to revive one of the victims and commented that he was glad one of the victims was dead. A crime scene investigator and an arson investigation expert both concluded that an accelerant had been used and the arson expert determined that the fire was intentionally set.

Sharpe v. State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the defendant's 911 call because he did not testify and was not subject to cross-examination.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report