Heup v. State, 8 Div. 52
Decision Date | 27 January 1989 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 52 |
Citation | 549 So.2d 528 |
Parties | William Joseph HEUP v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Lindsey M. Davis, Florence, for appellant.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Mary Elizabeth Culberson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was indicted by the Lauderdale County Grand Jury for one count of child abuse, in violation of § 26-15-3, Code of Alabama (1975), and four counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, in violation of § 13A-6-66, Code of Alabama (1975). Following a jury trial, the appellant was convicted of child abuse (committed against Christopher Holzschuh), and two counts of sexual abuse in the first degree (committed against Sara Holzschuh and Michelle Heup), and was sentenced to three concurrent terms of ten years' imprisonment. Two issues are raised in this appeal.
The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in requiring him to sit at a table located approximately 20 feet from the witness stand. The appellant argues that, by positioning him in such a manner, the trial court prevented him from establishing face-to-face contact with the witnesses for the prosecution, thereby denying him his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. We disagree.
The record shows that, following voir dire, counsel made a motion that she and the appellant be allowed to sit at the table closest to the witness stand. Counsel complained that the placement of the appellant "severely obstructed" his view of the witness stand. In denying the appellant's motion, the trial judge stated the following:
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part, that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to be confronted with the witnesses against him." The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment is applicable to the states by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). See also Ala. Const. Art. 1, § 6.
Recent decisions of this Court have addressed conflicts that have arisen where the right of confrontation involves very young witnesses in cases of sexual abuse. In Strickland v. State, 550 So.2d 1042 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), this Court, in upholding the constitutionality of Code of Alabama (1975), § 15-25-2 ( ), noted that the right of confrontation afforded by the Sixth Amendment must, at times, yield to the competing interests of public policy.
Strickland, supra, at ----. See also Brasher v. State, [Ms. 4 Div. 905, October 11, 1988] (Ala.Cr.App.1988).
The trial court in the present case clearly stated its concern that the prosecuting witnesses, the oldest of whom was eleven would be intimidated if the court allowed the appellant to sit at the requested table. While the position of the appellant may have made viewing the witnesses more difficult, it did not make seeing them impossible. Moreover, the appellant was physically present in the courtroom throughout the trial, and was permitted to confront and vigorously cross-examine all witnesses for the prosecution. Tucker v. State, 398 So.2d 417 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).
"The conduct of a trial rests squarely in the discretion of the presiding judge and, unless it appears that there...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barger v. State, 6 Div. 158
...Such inconsistencies, however, raise questions of weight, not sufficiency, and present credibility issues for the jury. Heup v. State, 549 So.2d 528 (Ala.Cr.App.1989); Currin v. State, 535 So.2d 221 (Ala.Cr.App.1988), cert. denied, 535 So.2d 225 (Ala.1989). As the evidence presented by the ......