Burttram v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 6 |
| Citation | 448 So.2d 497 |
| Parties | Darrell BURTTRAM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John W. Caylor, Huntsville, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jane LeCroy Brannan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from an adjudication of delinquency against Darrell Burttram involving the theft of a bicycle. The Juvenile Court sentenced Burttram to serve eight days in the Robert Reaves Center for Children and placed him on probation for one year.
On appeal, Burttram argues that his "conviction" is based on the unsupported and uncorroborated testimony of a co-conspirator and co-defendant and that there was insufficient evidence before the juvenile court to support a finding of delinquency beyond a reasonable doubt.
An adjudication of delinquency is not considered to be a conviction. Alabama Code Section 12-15-72(a) (1975). However, the quantum of evidence required to establish the guilt of the juvenile in a delinquency proceeding is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based upon competent, material and relevant evidence." Section 12-15-65(d). A.R.Juv.P. 25(A) further provides:
Here, we need not decide whether or not the rule requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony to support a criminal conviction (Alabama Code Section 12-21-222 (1975)) applies to a juvenile proceeding wherein the child is sought to be adjudicated a delinquent. Courts have split on the question of whether the requirement of corroboration should also be imposed in juvenile cases. Annot. 43 A.L.R.2d 1128, Section 5 (1955); IJA-ABA Joint Commission On Juvenile Justice Standards, Adjudication Section 4.2 (1980) (). A strong argument can be made that the corroboration rule should apply in juvenile delinquency determinations since many of the evidentiary limitations in criminal cases are statutorily imposed in juvenile cases. Section 12-15-66. Our Supreme Court has held that a revocation of probation, Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975), or the transfer of a juvenile to the criminal division of circuit court for treatment as an adult, Vincent v. State, 349 So.2d 1145 (Ala.1977), may be based upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice because both of those determinations involve a finding of probable cause and not guilt. In contrast, a delinquency hearing involves a determination of guilt. Although there is no constitutional requirement for the rule of corroboration in a delinquency adjudication, there are valid and compelling policy considerations for imposing such a limitation. Smith v. State, 525 P.2d 1251, 1253 (Okl.Cr.App.1974).
In this case, we need not answer this question because we find that the testimony of any alleged accomplice was corroborated by the evidence.
Anthony Lee Densmore testified that he, Darrell Burttram, and his brother, Curtis Burttram, "were talking about stealing the bike and me and Curtis was sitting behind the car and then we saw Darrell going by on the bike." Densmore and Curtis ran after and caught up with Darrell, each "walked" the bike along the railroad tracks and the three boys made the decision to throw the bike "in the bushes." The next day the three youths returned to the railroad tracks and disassembled the bicycle.
Cherry Thomas testified that someone stole her son's bike. She corroborated Densmore's testimony that Densmore, Curtis, and Darrell had been together the night the bike was stolen. She further stated that two weeks later the Burttram brothers brought her two wheels and the frame and wanted the reward which had been offered. Mrs. Thomas refused to pay the reward because she did not consider the parts "a whole bicycle." The brothers left the parts with Mrs. Thomas.
Mrs. Thomas and the Burttram brothers lived in the same apartment complex. The night the bicycle was stolen, Jimmy Melton saw the Burttrams standing behind Mrs. Thomas' townhouse, which was not in the vicinity of the Burttrams' own apartment. At that time the bike was "sitting there". After telling the boys to leave, Melton went to the store. Upon returning, he noticed the bike was not there.
Darrell Burttram presented an alibi defense. His father testified that both his sons were home watching television with him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Falkner v. State, CR-89-632
...An adjudication of delinquency is not a "conviction." Chambers v. State, 497 So.2d 607, 611 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Burttram v. State, 448 So.2d 497, 498 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). In Woodall v. Pettibone, 465 F.2d 49 ((4th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 413 U.S. 922, 93 S.Ct. 3054, 37 L.Ed.2d 1044 (1973), th......
-
Hodges v. State
...of property stolen at the time of the offense may also be sufficient to corroborate an accomplice's testimony.' " Burttram v. State, 448 So.2d 497, 499 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), quoting Andrews v. State, 370 So.2d 320, 322 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Andrews, 370 So.2d 323 (Ala.1979). " ......
-
Chambers v. State
...considerations for requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony in a delinquency adjudication are compelling, see Burttram v. State, 448 So.2d 497, 498 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), we have never held § 12-21-222 to be applicable to a delinquency hearing. Compare Vincent v. State, 349 So.2d 1145 (A......
-
Ex parte T.B.
...by statute nor by rule of the Supreme Court"). See also, Chambers v. State, 497 So.2d 607 (Ala.Crim.App.1986); and Burttram v. State, 448 So.2d 497 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). Furthermore, at common law and in the federal courts, corroboration generally has not been required. See, Alexander v. Sta......