418 P.2d 571 (Ariz. 1966), 1635, State v. Dodd

Docket Nº:1635.
Citation:418 P.2d 571, 101 Ariz. 234
Opinion Judge:[9] Mcfarland
Party Name:STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Roy Lee DODD, Appellant.
Attorney:[6] Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. [7] Ronald H. Petica, Phoenix, for appellant.
Case Date:September 28, 1966
Court:Supreme Court of Arizona

Page 571

418 P.2d 571 (Ariz. 1966)

101 Ariz. 234

STATE of Arizona, Appellee,

v.

Roy Lee DODD, Appellant.

No. 1635.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

September 28, 1966

In Banc.

Page 572

[101 Ariz. 235] Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Ronald H. Petica, Phoenix, for appellant.

McFARLAND, Justice:

Roy Lee Dodd, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried for robbery in violation of A.R.S. § 13--641. He was convicted by a jury of the crime of attempted robbery, at which time a prior conviction concerning narcotics was admitted. Defendant was sentenced for a period of ten to fifteen years in the State Prison, under authority of A.R.S. § 13--1649. From this conviction and sentence, defendant appeals.

Charles Gordon Powler testified that about 1:30 a.m., January 15, 1964, defendant and his brother approached him in the office of the service station where he was employed. Defendant's brother held a gun while defendant ripped the keys to the cash box from Fowler's belt, and then proceeded to open the cash box which was located on the island near the gas pumps and several feet from the office where defendant and his brother first approached Fowler.

Fowler testified that while he did not see defendant actually remove any cash from the box, there was a ten-dollar bill missing after the incident.

The robbery was interrupted by the unexpected presence of a police car in the area, and both individuals ran from the [101 Ariz. 236]

Page 573

station. Defendant's brother, Ed Dodd, was apprehended in a field behind the service station shortly after the arrival of the police car. Defendant Roy Lee Dodd was arrested in Flagstaff, Arizona, three days after the attempted robbery had occurred.

At the trial the only exhibit admitted into evidence was a confession in the handwriting of defendant. Defendant testified that he had signed the confession for fear that the parole given him upon his narcotics conviction would be violated if he did not cooperate and confess. The court, in a voluntariness hearing, ruled the confession was prima facie voluntary.

Shortly before the trial Fowler identified another party, who was with the defense counsel, as the party who had robbed him. During the trial Fowler definitely identified defendant as the man who had accompanied Ed Dodd on the night of the crime.

Defendant testified that on the night of the crime he was at a party. On the second day of the trial defense counsel requested the judge to allow him to introduce testimony of alibi witnesses. Defendant contends that the court committed error in refusing to allow the alibi witnesses to testify. The court refused to allow their testimony because defendant had not given five days' notice of his intention to introduce alibi evidence as provided in Rule 192, 17 A.R.S., which reads as follows:

'B. If a defendant intends to offer testimony to establish an alibi, he shall file with the clerk and serve upon the county attorney, not less than five days prior to the trial, written notice of intention to claim such defense. The notice shall contain the names of the witnesses to be used in support thereof and specific information as to the place at which the defendant claims to have been at the time of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP