Baker v. State, 5 Div. 506

Decision Date27 August 1957
Docket Number5 Div. 506
PartiesMorris BAKER v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

David H. Hood, Jr., Bessemer, for appellant.

John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Edmon L. Rinehart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARWOOD, Presiding Judge.

This appellant had been convicted in the County Court of Randolph County on a charge of indecent exposure. From this conviction he perfected his appeal to the circuit court.

There was also pending against this appellant an indictment charging him with indecent exposure.

In the solicitor's complaint filed in circuit court, and in the indictment, it was charged that the appellant within twelve months before 'did unlawfully expose or exhibit his sexual organs or private parts in a vulgar and indecent manner on a public road in Randolph County, Alabama, contrary to law', etc.

Section 326(1), Title 14, Code 1940 provides:

'It is unlawful for any person to expose or exhibit, or to procure another to expose or exhibit, his sexual organs or private parts in any public place or on the private premises of another, or so near thereto so as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar and indecent manner.'

The complaint and the indictment followed the wording of the statute, supra and were entirely sufficient to inform the appellant of the offense with which he was charged. The court therefore correctly overruled the demurrers filed to each charging document.

A jury being waived, trial below was had before the court.

Also, by agreement, the two charges were consolidated for trial, separate judgments to be entered for each case.

At the conclusion of the hearing the lower court entered a judgment of guilty in each case, and this appeal is from such judgments.

Mrs. Cleola Meadows, for the State, testified that on the 6th, 9th, and 11th of April 1956 she was driving along a road in Randolph County on her way to work. At approximately ten minutes to six on each morning, as she passed appellant's place, he would be standing nine or ten feet from the asphalt portion of the road with his private parts exposed.

After the second instance the matter was reported to the sheriff who instructed Mrs. Meadows to particularly notice the man should there be another occurrence.

The sheriff testified that after the third occurrence he went to appellant's home for the purpose of placing him under arrest. The appellant asked, 'For what?', and stated he had seen another colored man, named Menefield, in the road that morning. The sheriff, accompanied by the appellant, went to Menefield's home. Menefield agreed to accompany them to Mrs. Meadows's home for identification purposes. At the home of Mrs. Meadows a porch light was turned on, and the appellant and Menefield stood on the porch. Mrs. Meadows identified the appellant as being the man she had seen on the roadside.

Mrs. Meadows rode with the sheriff and pointed out to him the spot where the appellant had stood on the occasions in question. The sheriff testified that in his judgment this spot was on the public right of way of the road.

The County Engineer for Randolph County testified that at this point the right of way extends for forty feet on each side of the center line of the highway, and that the asphalt portion of the road extends for nine feet on each side of the center line of the road.

Without objection Leola Menefield testified that on two or three occasions in the month of April 1956, as she would be walking along the public road by appellant's place, the appellant would be 'down by his pasture' with his private parts out.

On cross examination the defense was permitted wide latitude in showing any possible bias that this witness might harbor toward appellant, and further that she had not told anyone of appellant's alleged conduct until after her husband had accompanied the sheriff and appellant to Mrs. Meadows's home for identification.

The evidence presented by the defense was directed toward establishing an alibi, in that the appellant was allegedly driving a school bus at the times in question.

A number of pupils who rode the school bus, some of the teachers at the school, and appellant's wife were used as witnesses for the purpose of establishing the alibi. It should be noted that, except for appellant's wife, none of these witnesses saw the appellant before 7:15 or 7:30 on the mornings in question. No testimony was elicited as to the distances between appellant's home and the places at which the alibi witnesses boarded the bus. Thus under the testimony of all these witnesses, except that of appellant's wife, there is a lapse of some 25 to 40 minutes between the time he allegedly exposed himself and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Adkins v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 8, 1973
    ...the accused of the offense he was charged with committing, and the court properly overruled the demurrers thereto.' In Baker v. State, 39 Ala.App. 221, 96 So.2d 821, the indictment charged that the defendant 'did unlawfully expose or exhibit his sexual organs or private parts in a vulgar an......
  • Cantrell v. State of Ala.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • February 4, 1977
    ...(1973); Bowlin v. Bowlin, 267 Ala. 655, 104 So.2d 630 (1958); Jackson v. Lowe, 48 Ala.App. 633, 266 So.2d 891 (1972); Baker v. State, 39 Ala.App. 221, 96 So.2d 821 (1957). ...
  • Miller v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 377
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1969
    ...3 Ala.App. 114, 57 So. 512, it was remarked '* * * the intent may be inferred from the recklessness of the act.' See Baker v. State, 39 Ala.App. 221, 96 So. 821. Anno. 94 A.L.R.2d Assignment of error 3 claims that the court below should have granted Miller's motion for new trial. This claim......
  • Taylor v. State, 4 Div. 85
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 16, 1983
    ... ... felony and after such conviction has committed another felony." Alabama Criminal Code, § 13A-5-9(a) ...         The judgment of conviction should be affirmed and the cause remanded ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT