Pate v. City of Tuscaloosa

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that Luther Stancel Pate’s action of getting a shotgun from his vehicle, without more, did not constitute a “physical action” *739that would support a conviction for menacing. In footnote 6 of his dissent, Justice Murdock points out that in Hiler v. State, 44 So.3d 535 (Ala.Crim.App.), rev’d on other grounds, 44 So.3d 543 (Ala.2009), a case I authored while serving as the presiding judge on the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, the Court of Criminal Appeals found “that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a charge of menacing in light of the context in…