Genealogical Association of Nova Scotia. Join Us. Library Information. NS Ancestors Certificate. About Us. Members Only.
Events - Current. Events - Past. Volunteer Opportunities. Nova Scotia Genealogist. What's New? Library Catalogue. Cemetery Records. Free Databases. Surname Research. YouTube Videos. Photo Gallery. Region: Select Denis St. John St. Member online access online Vital statistics from Halifax newspapers. F James and McCormick, L. CS D3 The early records of the town of Dedham Dedham, Mass.
T63 Suppl. D63i v. Shaw: Hewes, John A. P8 Plymouth Church records, First Church of Christ Plymouth, Mass. FC W5 Ontario marriage notices Wilson, Thomas B. Member only access online Nova Scotians who died in the influenza pandemic of Marble, Allan E. L95 Lyme records, : a literal transcription of the minutes of the town meetings with marginal notations, to which hath been appended land grants and ear marks Burr, Jean Chandler ed.
G46 Genealogies of Connecticut families : from the New England historical and genealogical register. B7 English origins of New England families : from the New England historical and genealogical register, second series. B16 Early Connecticut marriages as found in ancient church records prior to Bailey, Frederic W. Deaths recorded in East Hants by Alma J. Fenton: Manuscript Division. CD Births recorded in East Hants by Alma J.
Missouri Birth & Death Records Database, Pre-1910
State, S. Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction of a person under the law of parties if he acts intentionally or promotes or assists the commission of an offense, or if he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person in committing an offense. The evidence need only show that the actor was present at the commission of the offense and encouraged the commission of the offense either by words or other agreement. Burdine v. In determining whether a defendant participated in an offense as a party, the court may examine the events occurring before, during, and after the commission of the offense, and may rely on actions of the defendant which show an understanding and common design to commit the offense.
Beier v. In reviewing appellant's legal sufficiency challenge, we must consider only the evidence and inferences tending to support the finding and disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. In the Matter of T. Appellant stated that he and Gartell talked almost all day about committing a car-jacking. Gartell told appellant while they were still at appellant's friend's house to go into his friend's dad's room and steal a 9 mm gun.
Appellant did as Gartell instructed; however, he stole a. Appellant was not sure that Gartell wanted the. Gartell decided the pistol was sufficient. Appellant then took the gun and hid it in the back of a car without anyone knowing except Gartell. After being dropped off at Gartell's house, appellant and Gartell went outside and fired one round from the pistol into the air. At Gartell's house the two boys drank several bottles of malt liquor and became "pretty drunk. He stated he does not exactly remember, but thought he and Gartell switched off carrying the gun.
A friend dropped the boys off at a Kroger parking lot and they walked to Taco Bell. Gartell told appellant "let's just car-jack that fool right there," as a Mustang drove by, and appellant said, "shut up, don't be stupid. Gartell saw a truck he wanted to car-jack, and appellant said, "alright dude, whatever. Gartell told appellant, "get in. Later, appellant helped dispose of the truck by putting it into neutral to roll it into a creek.
Appellant also took his socks off so he could wipe down the truck and the gun clip.
In addition, appellant discarded the gun Gartrell used to kill Campbell. We find this evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that probable cause existed to believe appellant acted with intent to promote or assist in the commission of capital murder. A person commits the offense of capital murder if he commits murder as defined under Section In reviewing appellant's factual sufficiency contention, we consider all the evidence.
The finding will be upheld if it is not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly erroneous or unjust. After reviewing all of the evidence we find the only relevant evidence that we have not already discussed is the testimony of police officer Sherry Burrows. She testified that there was no evidence that appellant shot Joe Darin Campbell. Having so testified, however, she did not offer any evidence which would exculpate appellant under the law of parties.
Appellant claims there is some evidence that shows his innocence.economicsurvivalstore.com/hiw-cellphone-facebook-tracking.php
Louisiana Birth Records
He contends his own statements contain no admissions or inferences that he killed the complainant. Appellant contends his act of taking the gun for Gartrell as he was directed, is not evidence that he knew the gun was involved in the crime. However, appellant did admit that he got into the truck after the gunshot, he wiped down the gun and the truck after the shooting, he helped dispose of the truck, and he discarded the gun.
We find after reviewing all the evidence, the court's determination of probable cause was not so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust or erroneous. Appellant's first and third points of error are overruled.
- Birth & Death Certificates.
- mccreary county record whitley city ky.
- INFORMATION ABOUT THE DECEDENT.
In his second point of error, appellant asserts that 1 the trial court abused its discretion in finding appellant was of sufficient sophistication and maturity to be certified as an adult, and 2 it was error for the trial court to certify him as an adult. The trial court ordered a psychiatric assessment of appellant along with copies of his school records and a social history. Grace Jameson, the court appointed psychiatrist, testified that appellant possessed at least average intelligence. She stated he knows the kinds of things somebody his age ought to know. He had the ability to figure out things, he could think in the abstract, and he had average vocabulary skills.
She stated he suffered from chronic depression mainly because he had almost no contact with his father. His father was an alcoholic and he was rejected by his stepfather. She also stated he had low self-esteem, but did know right from wrong. She opined that he did not have the maturity and sophistication of the average 16 year old socially or emotionally; however, he did academically and intellectually.
Marilyn Schultz, a psychologist, examined appellant and his mother and testified on behalf of the State. She stated he was a young man well-developed and oriented. She found no real evidence of sociopathic tendencies and no evidence of mental illness or mental defect. She did find, however, that he had a tendency to go along with the plans of whatever friend he is around at the particular moment. Neither the case law nor the Family Code require a specific finding on whether appellant had sufficient sophistication and maturity.
At the time of this offense a juvenile court was required to consider the following six factors in determining whether to waive jurisdiction :. The current provision of section The juvenile court made all the required findings in its order. The order of the juvenile court waiving jurisdiction provided as follows:. The Court finds that the penal laws alleged to have been violated by the Respondent, were laws of the grade of felony, and were offense s against a person. The Court further finds that the Respondent is now and was at the time of the alleged offense s fifteen 15 years of age or over.