Griffin v. State
| Decision Date | 31 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 812 |
| Citation | 364 So.2d 428 |
| Parties | David Dennis GRIFFIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Sheldon L. Watkins, Birmingham, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Elizabeth N. Petree, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State, appellee.
A jury convicted appellant-defendant of robbery for which he was indicted: the Court adjudged him guilty and fixed punishment at 15 years imprisonment. Appellant was an indigent and took an in forma pauperis appeal.
Appellant's first contention is that there is insufficient evidence to justify the conviction. We have read the entire record and consider this contention to have no merit.
It appears that the victim of the robbery operated a store for the sale of automobile parts.
The victim and his wife were present in the store when two persons, one of whom was identified as defendant, entered the building at the front door which had a sounding apparatus on it when the door was opened. One of the defendants had a sawed off gun which he presented and demanded money that the victim gave him forthwith. They ordered the victim to go to the back of the store, where his wife was and made them both lie down on the floor. The two robbers then made their escape.
Mr. Ware, the victim, could not identify defendant in the line-up, but later seeing him at a preliminary, testified that he was one of the two who entered the front door and aided in the robbery.
Mrs. Ware, who said she was standing about 20 feet to the rear of the counter, upon which the cash register was sitting, to which point both alleged robbers came, positively identified the defendant after viewing him for a very short while.
Defendant took the stand and testified that he was at the house of a friend the afternoon at 5 o'clock when the robbery occurred and denied any participation. Mrs. Manning, the matron of the house, testified that she was at home all the afternoon and that defendant was also there playing cards with her son.
However, an officer testified that Mrs. Manning related her whereabouts to him and that she told him she was at another place and was not at home when the robbery occurred at 5 o'clock p. m. The evidence as to the alibi was conflicting. The jury resolved the issue against defendant. We will not disturb the jury verdict.
A second contention of error is addressed to a question to Sergeant Wade, a police officer, by the District Attorney and his answer both as follows:
The defendant objected and the court sustained the objection. We quote as follows:
Appellant, in his motion for a new trial, asserts that the court erred in not excluding the voluntary answer from the jury.
It appears that appellant did not, following this sustention, move for an exclusion of the voluntary answer. In the absence of such motion and an adverse ruling thereon, there is nothing for this Court to review. Willingham v. State, 261 Ala. 454, 74 So.2d 241(5).
A final contention of error is that the identification of de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maddox v. State
...motion for a mistrial was not the proper way to eliminate the consideration of Mahaney's answers from the jury. Griffin v. State, 364 So.2d 428 (Ala.Cr.App.1978)." Id. In the case sub judice, defense counsel should have initially requested that the trial court determine whether any prejudic......
-
Wadsworth v. State, 7 Div. 88
...(Ala.1980); Nix v. State, 370 So.2d 1115, 1117 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Nix, 370 So.2d 1119 (Ala.1979); Griffin v. State, 364 So.2d 428, 430 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); Van Antwerp v. State, 358 So.2d 782, 790 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Van Antwerp, 358 So.2d 791 State's witn......
-
Grimes v. State, 3 Div. 327
...motion for a mistrial was not the proper way to eliminate the consideration of Mahaney's answers from the jury. Griffin v. State, 364 So.2d 428 (Ala.Crim.App.1978). A mistrial in this case would have been too harsh a result. Defense counsel could have and should have asked for curative inst......