Connolly v. State
Decision Date | 10 November 1988 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 623 |
Citation | 539 So.2d 436 |
Parties | Rodney James CONNOLLY v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
T. Jefferson Deen III of Clark, Deen & Copeland, Mobile, for appellant.
Rodney James Connolly, pro se.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Beth Slate Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Rodney Connolly was convicted of the capital offense of murder during the course of a robbery. This court reversed that conviction because of the trial court's failure to charge on the lesser included offense of murder. Connolly v. State, 500 So.2d 57 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), affirmed, 500 So.2d 68 (Ala.1986). On retrial, Connolly was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He raises four issues on this appeal from that conviction.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give the following written requested charge:
"I charge you, members of the jury, that if the evidence convinces you that Stacey Bruner Trauathan is a woman of bad character, and unworthy of belief, then you may disregard her evidence altogether."
The refusal of a virtually identical charge was found to constitute reversible error in Ashlock v. State, 367 So.2d 560 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 562 (Ala.1979). However, here the court's failure to give the charge was not properly preserved for our review.
"No party may assign as error the court's ... failing to give a written instruction ... unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection." Rule 14, Temp.A.R.Cr.P. (emphasis added). Here, defense counsel made the following objection, "We'd except, of course, to you not giving all of our written charges as being correct statements of the law, the ones you did not give." Counsel "failed to set forth the specific grounds for his objection." Ex parte Johnson, 433 So.2d 479, 480 (Ala.1983). See Matkins v. State, 497 So.2d 201, 202 (Ala.1986). The reference to "all of" his written charges as "correct statements of the law" is simply not a specific ground of objection, especially in view of the fact that defense counsel submitted 33 charges, 18 of which were refused. While defense counsel is not required "to deliver a discourse before the trial judge on the applicable law of the case," Gardner v. Dorsey, 331 So.2d 634, 637 (Ala.1976) (Rule 51, A.R.Civ.P.) , he is required to direct the court's attention to the reason why a particular requested charge, which is at a minimum a "correct statement of the law," applies in the particular case. "[E]rrors by the trial court such as ... refusals of written charges ... should be brought to the attention of the trial court so that it might cure such errors at that level." Allen v. State, 414 So.2d 989, 992 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), affirmed, Ex parte Allen, 414 So.2d 993 (Ala.1982).
The defendant claims that the District Attorney assumed the dual roles of witness and prosecutor in violation of the principles set out in Waldrop v. State, 424 So.2d 1345 (Ala.Cr.App.1982). See also Ex parte Gilchrist, 466 So.2d 991 (Ala.1985); Maund v. State, 254 Ala. 452, 48 So.2d 553 (1950); Tarver v. State, 492 So.2d 328 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Stringer v. State, 372 So.2d 378 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Stringer, 372 So.2d 384 (Ala.1979).
During the investigation of the homicide, District Attorney Chris Galanos and Lieutenant Wilbur Williams went to Texas to take a statement from the defendant. At trial, the statement was introduced through the testimony of Lieutenant Williams, who stated that the District Attorney had read the defendant his Miranda rights. A tape recording of the interview, with the voices identified as those of Galanos, Williams, and the defendant was then played for the jury. The defendant argues that the tape recording constituted the "testimony" of Galanos, who, after becoming a "witness," should have been required to withdraw from the prosecution of the case.
The tape recording illustrated the testimony of Lieutenant Williams, see Molina v. State, 533 So.2d 701 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), and did not constitute the "testimony" of Galanos. "All testimony, except as otherwise directed, must be given in open court on the oath or affirmation of the witness." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-135 (emphasis added). See also Black's Law Dictionary 1778 (rev. 4th ed. 1968) ( ).
"The term 'witness,' in its strict legal sense, means one who gives evidence in a cause before a court; and in its general sense includes all persons from whose lips testimony is extracted to be used in any judicial proceeding, and so includes deponents and affiants as well as persons delivering oral testimony before a court or jury." 97 C.J.S. Witnesses § 1 at 350 (1957).
Because the District Attorney neither took the stand and testified under oath or affirmation nor provided sworn testimony through a deposition or affidavit, he was not a "witness," and he was not required to withdraw from the prosecution of the case.
The defendant insists that the trial court should have granted his motion for mistrial following testimony that he invoked his right to remain silent after Miranda warnings. On cross-examination of Lieutenant Williams by defense counsel, the following occurred:
Defense counsel objected and moved for a mistrial. The trial court sustained the objection, denied the motion for mistrial, and gave the jury the following instruction:
In Houston v. State, 354 So.2d 825 (Ala.Cr.App.1977), cert. denied, 354 So.2d 829 (Ala.1978), the following observation was made:
" " 354 So.2d at 827.
Hurt v. State, 361 So.2d 1163, 1165 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). See also Williams v. State, 445 So.2d 798, 806 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, Williams v. Mississippi, 469 U.S. 1117, 105 S.Ct. 803, 83 L.Ed.2d 795 (1985).
In order to determine whether the comment warrants a mistrial or is capable of being cured, a court should " 'look to the context in which the statement was made in order to determine the manifest intention which prompted it and its natural and necessary impact upon the jury.' " United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1362 (11th Cir.1983).
Here, it is significant that the comment (1) was not elicited on questioning by the State, cf. United States v. Vera, supra ( ), (2) was unresponsive and "volunteered" by the witness, cf. Matire v. Wainwright, 811 F.2d 1430, 1435 (11th Cir.1987) ( ), and (3) was made in the context of an otherwise legitimate narration of the scope of the officer's investigation. Cf. Dudley v. State, 480 N.E.2d 881, 900 (Ind.1985) ( ). Furthermore, there was no misconduct by the prosecutor through repeated references to the defendant's silence, e.g. Matire v. Wainwright, supra, or use of that silence in argument, e.g., Houston v. State, supra. See generally, Commonwealth v. Gbur, 327 Pa.Super. 18, 474 A.2d 1151 (1984).
When a trial court immediately instructs the jury to disregard improper remarks, it is presumed that the prejudicial effect of the impropriety is removed, Leverett v. State, 462 So.2d 972, 978 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). The cautionary instruction given here was very similar to that given in United States v. Beard, 775 F.2d 1577 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1030, 106 S.Ct. 1235, 89 L.Ed.2d 343 (1986) wherein the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Knight v. State, CR-93-1974
...has been convicted of a lesser-included offense, he may not thereafter be prosecuted for the greater offense." Connolly v. State, 539 So.2d 436, 441 (Ala.Cr.App.1988) (citations "However, the Alabama Supreme Court has explicitly rejected a strict 'elements' approach to the lesser-included/s......
-
Revis v. State Of Ala.
...the defendant is not determined by the number of pieces of property actually taken, as was done in this case. Cf.Connolly v. State, 539 So. 2d 436, 441-42 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988) ("The State could not convert a single theft of various items of property into separate offenses by alleging the ......
-
Dorsey v. State
...robbery is a lesser included offense of the capital offense of the capital offense involving murder-robbery.' "Connolly v. State, 539 So.2d 436, 441 (Ala.Cr.App.1988)." (Emphasis The trial court is directed to vacate Dorsey's conviction and sentence for robbery. However, Dorsey's conviction......
-
Belisle v. State
...instruction sufficient to cure nonresponsive witness's comment that defendant had previously been in prison); Connolly v. State, 539 So.2d 436 (Ala.Crim.App.1988) (curative instruction cured nonresponsive witness's answer that defendant had invoked his right to remain 7. A defendant has no ......