587 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991), CR-90-367, Adams v. State

Docket Nº:CR-90-367.
Citation:587 So.2d 1265
Opinion Judge:TAYLOR, Judge.
Party Name:Michael Eugene ADAMS v. STATE.
Attorney:W. Lloyd Copeland and T. Jefferson Deen III, Mobile, for appellant. James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and James B. Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Case Date:May 31, 1991
Court:Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1265

587 So.2d 1265 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991)

Michael Eugene ADAMS

v.

STATE.

CR-90-367.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

May 31, 1991

Rehearing Denied July 26, 1991.

Certiorari Denied Oct. 11, 1991 Alabama Supreme Court 1901688.

Page 1266

W. Lloyd Copeland and T. Jefferson Deen III, Mobile, for appellant.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and James B. Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

TAYLOR, Judge.

The appellant, Michael Eugene Adams, was charged in separate indictments with the offenses of attempted murder, robbery in the first degree, rape in the first degree, and sodomy in the first degree, said offenses being in violation of §§ 13A-4-2, 13A-8-41, 13A-6-61, and 13A-6-63, Code of Alabama 1975, respectively.

After a jury trial, the appellant was found guilty of attempted murder, rape in the first degree, and sodomy in the first degree. He was also convicted of theft in the third degree, a lesser included offense of robbery in the first degree.

The appellant was sentenced by the trial court to life imprisonment on the attempted murder conviction, 20 years in prison on the first degree rape conviction, 20 years in prison on the first degree sodomy conviction, and 1 year in the county jail for the misdemeanor theft conviction. All sentences were ordered to run consecutively.

The appellant raises four issues on appeal.

I

The appellant first contends that the trial court erred by overruling his objection when the prosecutor allegedly argued impeachment evidence to the jury as substantive evidence.

Specifically, the appellant contends that the prosecution argued in closing that the appellant had left town on February 4, 1990, which was the date of the various assaults against the victim. The appellant argues that the only evidence of this fact was introduced by the state on direct examination of the appellant's mother. This evidence was in the form of a prior inconsistent statement made by the mother to police. In a second statement to police, the appellant's mother changed that first statement and said that the appellant had left town on February 5, the day after the offenses were committed. This was also her testimony at trial. Thus, the appellant contends that any evidence of his leaving town on February 4 was introduced for impeachment purposes only and, as such, was not within the realm of evidence which could be argued by the prosecutor during closing argument.

The appellant argues that remarks concerning his "flight" from town on February 4 rather than February 5 were more damning to him and thus prejudiced him before the jury. We do not agree.

The appellant in this case was faced with overwhelming evidence of his guilt at the time that both sides rested. That evidence included the following facts.

In the early morning hours of February 4, 1990, the appellant entered a bar near Prichard, Alabama. The victim was in the bar at the time he entered. After engaging in a conversation with the victim and buying two beers, the appellant offered to drive the victim home. After the two were in the automobile, the appellant asked the victim if she had some time to kill; she stated that she did, and the two drove to an area known as Soul City near Prichard, where the appellant said he had something that he wanted to show her. When he turned off the highway, the car became stuck in a hole. The two attempted to push the car out of the hole, but were unable to do so. When it became apparent that they could not push it out, the appellant went to find something to place under the tire that was in the hole, and the victim fell asleep in the car.

A short time later, the victim was awakened by the appellant's hitting her on

Page 1267

the head and telling her to get out of car. When she refused, he pulled down her pants and attempted to force her to engage in sex with him. When this...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP