Bailey v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 1991 |
| Parties | Jeffery C. BAILEY v. STATE. CR 89-759. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James Ronald Harris, Birmingham, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Andy S. Poole, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Jeffery C. Bailey was convicted for the offense of robbery in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-8-41, Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found him guilty as charged in the indictment, and he was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court properly allowed 1) the State's cross-examination of Bailey concerning his prior convictions and arrests, and 2) the prosecutor's comments about Bailey's prior convictions in closing argument.
In its examination of Bailey, defense counsel asked the following questions about Bailey's prior arrests and convictions:
In its cross-examination of Bailey, the prosecutor asked Bailey the following questions about Bailey's recent conviction for robbery in the first degree because Bailey had failed to disclose this conviction on direct examination:
The prosecutor then questioned Bailey about his prior arrests:
In his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor made the following remarks about Bailey's prior conviction for robbery in the first degree:
Bailey initially contends that the State's attempt to impeach him by evidence of a prior conviction for a crime of moral turpitude was improper because he denied the prior conviction. We disagree.
The record clearly shows that Bailey admitted his prior conviction for robbery in the first degree when the State questioned him. On direct examination, Bailey had admitted several prior convictions, but he did not disclose his conviction for robbery in the first degree, which had occurred only three months prior to trial. Certainly, the court cannot be found in error for allowing the State to uncover this information on cross-examination when defense counsel opened the door to this inquiry on direct examination. See Ringer v. State, 489 So.2d 646 (Ala.Cr.App.1986).
Bailey further contends that the State was allowed to bring out the particulars of his previous conviction of robbery in the first degree. Although the court initially overruled Bailey's objection to the State's question concerning the name of the victim of the robbery for which Bailey had been convicted, the State did not proceed to ask Bailey to verify the name of the victim at that time. When the State subsequently asked Bailey to verify the name of the victim of the prior robbery, the court sustained his objection. Bailey therefore received a favorable ruling and lacks the necessity of an adverse ruling as a preliminary requirement for preservation of error and appellate review. See Leonard v. State, 551 So.2d 1143 (Ala.Cr.App.1989). We note, moreover, that defense counsel opened the door to the particulars of Bailey's prior robbery conviction when it paraded Bailey's prior guilty plea convictions in front of the jury on direct examination.
Bailey's third contention, that the State was allowed to improperly question him about offenses for which he had been arrested but not convicted, is likewise devoid of merit. Because defense counsel, in its direct examination of Bailey, opened the door to questions concerning Bailey's prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finley v. State
...317 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), cert. denied, 607 So.2d 320 (Ala.1992); Ex parte Bankhead, 585 So.2d 112, 122 (Ala.1991); and Bailey v. State, 579 So.2d 55 (Ala.Crim.App.1991). In each of these cases, however, the prior convictions involved crimes of moral turpitude. The issue in Bankhead, in fact......