Anderson v. State, 4 Div. 9
Decision Date | 04 November 1969 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 9 |
Citation | 235 So.2d 902,45 Ala.App. 653 |
Parties | Henry Thompson ANDERSON, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Alice L. Anderson, Enterprise, Farmer & Farmer, Dothan, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Lloyd G. Hart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of second degree burglary. The sentence was two years hard labor for the County.
Appellant was indicted jointly with Donald Lloyd Godwin and Douglas Allen Austin. Godwin and Austin, who had previously pled guilty to the instant indictment, were called as witnesses for the State and testified adversely to appellant concerning his complicity in the alleged burglary. Appellant did not testify at his trial.
Godwin testified on cross examination as follows:
'
On the State's re-direct examination of Godwin, the following occurred:
Austin testified on cross examination as follows:
'
On the State's re-direct examination of Austin, the following occurred:
'Q. On all these cases that you plead guilty to, were you a co-defendant in each one of them with Henry Thompson
The State contends that admitting evidence that appellant had other charges pending against him was not error and comes within exceptions 3, 4 and 5 of the following rule stated in Dennison v. State, 17 Ala.App. 674, 88 So. 211:
'The general and well-recognized rule is that in a prosecution for a particular offense evidence tending to show defendant guilty of another and distinct offense, disconnected with the crime charged, is inadmissible; the manifest purpose of this rule being to prevent prejudice to the defendant in the minds of the jury by the introduction of evidence of offenses for which he is not indicted, to which he is not finally to answer, and building up a conviction on inferences of guilt from the fact that he had committed another offense. The justice, fairness, and reason for the rule is apparent, and, as said in the case of Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313: 'A strict adherence to it is necessary to prevent criminal prosecutions from becoming instruments of oppression and injustice.'
Had the State offered evidence which had probative value tending to show either intent, motive or identity of appellant then we agree that the question would have been presented as to whether such evidence would actually come within some of the exceptions to the rule above quoted. However, we think an important distinction has been overlooked; namely, that the testimony offered merely showed that appellant was charged with other unspecified offenses. Testimony that appellant is charged with other offenses is not evidence, under our system, tending to show appellant guilty of another distinct offense. To so hold would tend to strike down one of the most basic and well established principles known to American criminal jurisprudence; i.e., the presumption of innocence.
We, therefore, hold that admitting testimony that appellant was 'charged with' and was a 'co-defendant' in other unspecified offenses was highly prejudicial and requires a reversal of this cause. Gallman v. State, 29 Ala.App. 264, 195 So. 768; Crow v. State, 28 Ala.App. 319, 183 So. 897.
Appellant contends that his alleged confession was inadmissible because he was intoxicated at the time it was alleged to have been made, thus rendering anything he might have said involuntary.
Evidence was heard on the voluntariness of the alleged confession out of the presence of the jury in accordance with Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908. There was ample evidence, even...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. R.M.
...additions similar to that used here, i.e., that anything said can be used "for or against you." See, e.g., Anderson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 653, 235 So.2d 902 (1969), cert. denied sub nom. Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 285 Ala. 756, 235 So.2d 906 (Ala.1970). See also Sampson v. Sta......
-
Rogers v. State
...fact which the trial judge must first determine before allowing it to be submitted to the jury for their consideration. Anderson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 653, 235 So.2d 902. Where ample evidence, even though conflicting, exists from which the trial judge could conclude that the appellant was n......
-
Myers v. State
...the will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words." Stewart v. State, supra; Anderson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 653, 235 So.2d 902, cert. denied, 285 Ala. 756, 235 So.2d 906 (1969). This same standard has been applied to statements made while under the i......
-
Fields v. State, 1 Div. 857
...will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words.' Stewart v. State, supra; Anderson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 653, 235 So.2d 902 (1969), cert. denied, 285 Ala. 756, 235 So.2d 906 (1970). This same standard has been applied to statements made while under th......