Cornelius v. State, 3 Div. 170
| Decision Date | 23 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 170 |
| Citation | 272 So.2d 623,49 Ala.App. 417 |
| Parties | Jerry Lynn CORNELIUS, alias v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Craig Miller, Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
From a conviction of robbery in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County this appeal is prosecuted. A jury fixed punishment at ten (10) years in the penitentiary.
Appellant had a court-appointed lawyer to represent him in the trial below who was also appointed to represent him on appeal. Before the appeal was perfected his trial counsel, Honorable William P. Haney, Jr., made known to the court that he would soon assume the duties of an Assistant District Attorney for Montgomery County and moved the court to appoint another lawyer to handle the case on appeal. The court appointed Honorable Craig Miller to represent appellant on appeal and he filed briefs.
In the early morning hours of August 5, 1971, the night attendant at the Shell Service Station located at the intersection of Fairview and Cleveland Avenues was robbed by two men. According to the testimony of the attendant, these two men came inside the station and asked him for some change so they could use the toll phone. He made the change and the men went outside toward the phone booth. In a few minutes the men returned and asked for more change. The attendant opened the cash register to give them more change and at this time one of the men sprayed Mace in the attendant's face. Appellant then grabbed the money from the cash register and the other robber stuck something in the attendant's back and told him to walk to the back of the building and that if he tried anything they would kill him. The robbers left and the attendant went to the telephone and called the police. He gave the police a description of the men saying 'they both had on sandals; mustaches, and one had on a light blue work suit' and the other one 'had on a brown shirt.'
The officers immediately responded to the call and the suspects were stopped on the ramp leading up to Interstate 65, a short distance from the service station. While the officers were interviewing the suspects they received a radio dispatch giving a more detailed description of the robbers and how they were dressed. One was wearing a blue shirt and blue pants and had a mustache, and the other suspect was wearing a brown shirt and brown pants and had long hair. The officers carried both suspects to the service station where they were identified by the victim of the robbery. The officers shook down the suspects and recovered the money--$62.08. At trial it was shown that appellant was the one dressed in blue. The attendant made an 'in-court identification', pointing out that appellant was one of the robbers.
Appellant testified and denied that he participated in this alleged robbery and denied that he had ever been to this service station before the officers carried him there. He stated that they came from Charlotte, North Carolina, and were going to get on I--65 enroute to Mobile.
Appellant filed a motion for a new trial raising prejudicial error in the action of the trial court in overruling the motion to exclude the eye-witness identification by the victim of the robbery. The contention is made here, in brief, that it was a denial of due process to singly show the defendant (appellant) to the victim of the crime charged without a pretrial lineup. He relies on United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199, and Biggers v. Tennessee, 390 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 979, 19 L.Ed.2d 1267.
We disagree and affirm the judgment of conviction.
It is now settled law that prompt on-the-scene confrontation is 'consistent with good police work', and does not offend the principles established in the cases relied upon by appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Weatherford v. State
... Page 863 ... 369 So.2d 863 ... Dennis Alphonso WEATHERFORD ... 5 Div. 428 ... Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama ... Feb. 20, 1979 ... State, 51 Ala.App. 632, 288 So.2d 170 (1974); Denson v. State, 50 Ala.App. 409, 279 So.2d 580 (1973); DeFranze ... Brazell v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 3 Div. 849, 369 So.2d 25 (Ms. June 20, 1978) ... "Though the practice of ... Cornelius v. State, 49 ... Page 867 ... Ala.App. 417, 272 So.2d 623 (1973); ... ...
-
Hobbs v. State
...with good police work. Donahoo v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 371 So.2d 68; Robinson v. State, 55 Ala.App. 658, 318 So.2d 354; Cornelius v. State, 49 Ala.App. 417, 272 So.2d 623. A showup by its inherent nature is, however, suggestive. Brazell v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 369 So.2d 25, cert. denied, 369 ......
-
Montgomery v. State, 6 Div. 211
...and identification of suspects are consistent with good police work and not a denial of due process. Cornelius v. State, 49 Ala.App. 417, 272 So.2d 623, (Ala.Cr.App.1973), citing Bates v. United States, 405 F.2d 1104 (3d Cir.1969). As emphasized by the Cornelius, supra, court, the action of......
-
Brazell v. State
...In Criminal Cases, p. 28. Nevertheless, prompt, on-the-scene confrontation may be consistent with good police work. Cornelius v. State, 49 Ala.App. 417, 272 So.2d 623 (1973); Payne v. State, 48 Ala.App. 401, 265 So.2d 185, cert. denied, 288 Ala. 748, 265 So.2d 192, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 10......