Eaton v. State
| Decision Date | 23 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 333 |
| Citation | 423 So.2d 352 |
| Parties | Roger EATON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
James B. McNeill, Jr., Selma, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Roger Eaton was indicted by a Dallas County grand jury for robbery in the first degree. Upon trial, he was convicted of the lesser included offense of robbery in the second degree and was sentenced under the Habitual Felony Offender Act to life imprisonment. Hence this appeal.
Mr. Elton McGaha, the owner of Foodland, a grocery store in Selma, returned to his store on May 26, 1980, at about 8:00 P.M. after having closed it some two hours earlier. After he entered the store, he went to the office located in the front portion of the building and, upon opening the door, was "jumped by two black males." After they "scuffled," Mr. McGaha was taken by the two to the back of the store where he noticed the presence of a third individual. Mr. McGaha's watch and billfold were taken from him by the trio, and he was then carried to the office area in the front portion of the store. On the way to the front, he was struck on the head by one of them. Mr. McGaha was forced to open the store safe, which contained about $3,000. The intruders tied a jacket around Mr. McGaha's head and tied him to the office desk; he was warned not to move or try to escape under threat of being killed. He extricated himself after about five or ten minutes and called the police.
Mr. McGaha could not identify the "two black males" who jumped him or the third individual, and could not identify appellant as one of the robbers.
Based on information from a confidential informant and "four other individuals," Captain Bobo of the Selma Police Department caused the issuance of a warrant for appellant's arrest. After his arrest, appellant gave a statement to the police officers admitting his involvement in the robbery.
Appellant urges that his inculpatory statement should have been excluded on his timely motions because (1) the arrest was illegal, (2) the statement was not voluntarily made, and (3) the corpus delicti was not proved.
The issue of the validity of the arrest warrant, i.e., the claim that the arrest warrant was not issued on the basis of probable cause, thus causing the arrest to be illegal, was not preserved for appellate review. Neither the arrest warrant nor any of the supporting documents appear in the record, nor is there any indication that either side attempted to introduce them. Additionally, that issue was not raised in appellant's motion to suppress; therefore, there was no hearing on the matter. The rule is well settled that appellate review is limited to matters appearing in the record Conner v. State, 382 So.2d 601 (Ala.Cr.App.1980), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 605 (Ala.1980), and authorities cited therein. No adverse ruling on the validity of the arrest warrant was preserved for review. However, we do note in passing that the testimony of Captain Bobo would, in our opinion, readily support sufficient corroboration of appellant's involvement in the robbery.
The "involuntariness" of appellant's inculpatory statement is hinged on the theory that he was so intoxicated at the time that he was not conscious of the meaning of his words. The evidence fails to give credence to this theory. The evidence is clear that appellant had consumed a quantity of alcohol the preceding night, but there is a conflict in the evidence as to the degree, if any, of appellant's intoxication at or about the time of the inculpatory statement. Certainly, except for appellant's testimony, there was no evidence of the degree of intoxication which would have rendered the statement inadmissible. Intoxication, short of mania or such impairment of the will and mind as to make an individual unconscious of the meaning of his words, will not render a statement or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. State
...court is bound by the record and not by allegations or arguments in brief reciting matters not disclosed by the record. Eaton v. State, 423 So.2d 352 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Harris v. State, 420 So.2d 812 (Ala.Crim.App.1982); Hollins v. State, 415 So.2d 1249 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). There is nothi......
- Bankhead v. State
-
People v. Stoudemire
...multiple convictions arising from the same indictment may count as separate purpose of the habitual offender statute. Eaton v. State, 423 So.2d 352 (Ala.Crim.App.1982).19 "1. Every person convicted in this state of any crime of which fraud or intent to defraud is an element, or of petit lar......
-
Collier v. City of Milford
...v. Townsend, supra; Luther v. M & M Chemical Co., supra; Cluxton v. Cluxton, 431 So.2d 1296, 1298 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Eaton v. State, 423 So.2d 352, 354 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Walton v. Walton, 409 So.2d 858, 860 (Ala.Civ.App.1982); Golden v. Golden, 360 So.2d 994, 995-96 (Ala.Civ.App.1978); Pe......