Ex parte Thompson
| Decision Date | 14 September 1979 |
| Parties | Ex parte Billy THOMPSON. (In re Billy Thompson v. State). 78-493. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
J. Fletcher Jones, Andalusia, for petitioner.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Thomas R. Allison, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, respondent.
Defendant, Billy Thompson, was charged by indictment with assault with intent to murder. He pleaded not guilty, was tried, and was found guilty of assault and battery. He was fined five hundred dollars and sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the county jail. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals the judgment of conviction was affirmed.
We granted certiorari to consider the sole question of whether the trial court committed reversible error by allowing the prosecution to introduce evidence regarding defendant's reputation for peace and quiet where defendant had testified but had not put that aspect of his character in issue. The Court of Criminal Appeals answered this question in the negative. We disagree and therefore reverse.
This case centers around a barroom fight between two first cousins. At 12:30 p. m. on 13 March 1977 the assault victim, Wilton Cox, and the defendant began drinking beer together. Around 4:30 or 5:00 p. m. the two went to the Amvets Club in Covington County where they continued to consume intoxicating beverages. They both became highly intoxicated and engaged in a fight around 8:00 or 9:00 p. m. Thompson slashed Cox with a knife five times during the fight. The two were disengaged when the bartender struck Thompson on the head with a night stick. After the blow Thompson went outside the club. Cox was assisted to his feet and two patrons of the club took him outside in order to drive him to the hospital. When Cox emerged from the club he attacked the defendant. They were again disengaged, and Cox was taken to the hospital. 1
The evidence was in conflict as to who was the aggressor. Cox testified that Thompson started the fight by biting him on the arm. Thompson testified that Cox started the fight by striking him in the head while he was passed out at the bar. Apparently, the jury believed Cox as evidenced by its finding Thompson guilty of assault and battery.
The issue before this court stems from the following questioning of Deputy Sheriff George Spzek by the prosecutor:
As the record discloses, Thompson's attorney timely and properly objected to the introduction of any evidence about defendant's reputation in the community for peace and quiet.
Although defendant did testify, at no time did he put his character for peace and quiet at issue. The Court of Criminal Appeals, in its opinion, recognized it was error for the trial court to admit testimony about defendant's reputation for peace and quiet. It went on to state the correct rule of law:
Thompson v State, 376 So.2d at 765 (Ala.Cr.App.1979).
The appellate court, however, held the error to be harmless, citing Kennedy v. State, 291 Ala. 62, 277 So.2d 878 (1973). However, Kennedy is inapt to this case. In Kennedy, the trial court refused four written charges, requested by defendant, which were substantially the same and one of which was illustrative of all four:
" 'The court charges the Jury that, if the evidence convinces you that Dixon is a man of bad character, and unworthy of belief, then you may disregard his evidence altogether.' " (Dixon was a witness for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
... ... Clarke v. State, 117 Ala. 1, 23 So. 671 (1898); Kent v. State, 367 So.2d 508 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte State ex rel. Att.Gen., 367 So.2d 518 (Ala.1978). Proof of the use of a deadly weapon raises the presumption of malice, and throws upon the ... Thompson v. State, 376 So.2d 761, 764 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed on other grounds, Ex parte Thompson, 376 So.2d 766 (Ala.1979); Hardin v. State, 344 So.2d 234, ... ...
-
Smiley v. State
... ... "Further, ... we must view the circumstantial evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution," Ex parte Bailey, 590 So.2d 354, 357 (Ala.1991), and in conformity with the other principles set forth in Ex parte Mauricio, 523 So.2d 87, 91-93 (Ala.1987), ... State, 382 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Ala.Cr.App.1980). Accord Thompson v. State, 376 So.2d 761, 764 (Ala.Cr.App.), reversed on other grounds, 376 So.2d 766 (Ala.1979); Stoudemire v. State, 365 So.2d 376, 379 ... ...
-
Ex Parte State (in Re State v. Neel)
... ... C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence 457.02(7) (3d ed. 1977). See also Hamby v. State, 254 Ala. 139, 47 So.2d 218 (1950); Thompson v. State, 376 So.2d 761, 764 (Ala.Cr.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 376 So.2d 766 (Ala.1979) (wherein the court noted that [w]here the undisputed evidence clearly shows the victim to be at fault, the accused may be entitled to a directed verdict). More particularly apropos to the instant facts ... ...
-
Lockett v. State, 8 Div. 357
... ... Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 457.02(7) (3d ed. 1977). See also Hamby v. State, 254 Ala. 139, 47 So.2d 218 (1950); Thompson v. State, 376 So.2d 761, 764 (Ala.Cr.App.), rev'd on other grounds, 376 So.2d 766 (Ala.1979) (wherein the court noted that "[w]here the undisputed ... "In Ex parte Whitt, 370 So.2d 736 (Ala.1979), this Court established a standard to be applied in testing the 'cure' in 'direct comment' cases: ... ...