Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 563 |
| Parties | Gregory BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
R. Howell Dean, Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Eric A. Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of assault with intent to murder Richard Stubbs and sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years.
The facts, as shown by the evidence, are almost identical with those narrated in Brown v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 339 So.2d 125, and Brown v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 1050. In case No. 559, the appellant was the same as appellant in this case, Gregory Brown; in case No. 563, the appellant was Zane Brown, a younger brother of appellant in this case.
As in the other two cases, the evidence showed that the said Gregory Brown, Zane Brown and their brother Leroy Brown robbed Richard Stubbs, the attendant at a gasoline station, thereafter compelled him to get into the automobile driven by one of the robbers, took him into the country on the outskirts of Montgomery and there shot him in the head and left him as if dead. Stubbs survived and was able to testify and definitely identify the three Brown brothers as the felons.
The principal points raised on this appeal are (1) that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's pre-trial motion to suppress evidence taken from the automobile used by the robbers and searched by the officers, and (2) that the in-court and lineup identifications by Stubbs of defendant and his brothers were tainted in the process of showing Stubbs photographs, and that the court was in error in allowing testimony by Stubbs as to his identification of defendant and his brothers. We adhere to what we held in the other two cases as to both points.
Appellant contends the trial court was in error in overruling defendant's objection to a question seeking the repetition of facts already stated by the witness and relies upon Smith v. Dillard, 291 Ala. 96, 278 So.2d 358, holding that it was not error for the trial court to sustain an objection to such question. It is also true that the trial court is not to be put in error for overruling an objection to a question on the sole ground that it calls for repetitive testimony. Whether testimony of a witness is to be repeated is wisely left to the discretion of the trial court. Penry v. Dozier, 161 Ala. 292, 49 So. 909; Curtis v. State, 44 Ala.App. 335, 208 So.2d 245.
While counsel were interrogating Richard Stubbs, as a witness, out of the presence of the jury, as to his identification of photograph of appellant and his brothers, the trial court also asked some questions of the witness. Appellant urges that such action was error. It is clear to us that there was nothing in the trial court's questions that would subject its action to any exception to the general rule that it is the trial court's right, and sometimes its duty, to propound questions to witnesses. Jones v. State, 292 Ala. 126, 290 So.2d 165; Franks v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. State, 8 Div. 61
...582 (1976); Impson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 331 So.2d 837, (1976); Cross v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 351 So.2d 698 (1977); Brown v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 1367 (1977); Donilson v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 350 So.2d 738 Obviously cognizant of the principle of law just stated, the trial court ques......
-
Brown v. State., 3 Div. 609
...identical with those narrated in Brown v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 339 So.2d 125; Brown v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 1050, and Brown v. State, 342 So.2d 1367, released by this Court on March 1, 1977. Reference to those cases is here made for a more definitive statement of the facts, circumst......
-
Brown v. State, 3 Div. 583
...is hereby adopted as that of the Court. The judgment below is hereby AFFIRMED. All the Judges concur. 1 See also Brown v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 1367 (1977) aff'g conviction of Gregory Brown for assault with intent to ...