Holloman v. State
Decision Date | 16 August 1977 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 426 |
Citation | 349 So.2d 131 |
Parties | Roosevelt HOLLOMAN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
No brief for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and James L. O'Kelley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Second degree murder; sentence: ninety-nine years imprisonment.
The evidence showed that around 6:45 P.M. on March 29, 1976, the appellant and his brother, Michael Holloman, went to the apartment where Welbert Johnson was staying. They cursed and threatened Johnson and then began fighting him. The motive is unclear, and it appears to be a senseless scuffle that culminated in a knifing. The appellant repeatedly stabbed Johnson in the back, while Michael Holloman held him on the ground. Both brothers ran away when a resident of the apartment fired two warning shots at the duo. There were four eyewitnesses to the killing.
Michael Holloman testified for the defense that he was "tussling" with Johnson for about ten minutes. Johnson had a knife, but did not cut him. Michael's brother Roosevelt (appellant) came up and joined in the fight and stabbed Johnson. The witness was apparently attempting to show self-defense on the part of his brother, but he definitely testified that the appellant did the stabbing. None of the other witnesses saw the victim with a knife, and the police did not find one at the scene. One police officer, who interrogated Michael Holloman, testified that the witness did not tell him that the victim was armed with a knife. The appellant did not testify.
The identity of the victim was established by the four eyewitnesses. The victim's name was set out in the indictment as "Wilbur" Johnson, whereas on trial it was shown (by the State) that his name was actually spelled "Welbert." The victim's father testified that he was known as, and called by the name "Wilbur." There was no objection, plea, motion or demurrer filed contending that a fatal variance existed because of the misspelling of the victim's first name in the indictment. We conclude that no error resulted. In Russell v. State, 54 Ala.App. 452, 309 So.2d 489 (1974) cert. denied 293 Ala. 773, 309 So.2d 495, we held that no material variance is shown where an indictment identifies a victim by the name by which he is known in the community where he lived, although it is not his true name. See also: Roberts v. State, 25 Ala.App. 477, 149 So. 356 (1933). One of our latest expressions in this regard is found in an opinion by Judge Tyson, Westfaul v. State, 56 Ala.App. 519, 323 So.2d 404 (1975) cert. denied 295 Ala. 427, 323 So.2d 406, wherein we reached the same conclusion as in the instant case.
Several photographs of the victim's body were introduced over objection that they were gruesome, cumulative and of no probative value. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in admitting the photographs into evidence. They were properly identified and authenticated and tended to shed light on the nature of the wounds and the ferocity of the attack. Lewis v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 339 So.2d 1035 (1976) cert. denied, Ala., 339 So.2d 1038; McHugh v. State, 53 Ala.App. 473, 301 So.2d 238 (1974).
Counsel for appellant attempted to impeach the credibility of State's witness Alma Reed when the following occurred:
The prosecutor then objected, and the trial judge sustained the objection, to which appellant excepted.
The credibility of a witness may be attacked by questions relating to the general reputation of that witness in the community. Pugh v. State, 42 Ala.App. 499, 169 So.2d 27 (1964); Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence (3rd ed. 1977), § 140.01. However, we find that no prejudicial error resulted since the witness gave the answer which appellant sought to elicit prior to the objection. Rule 45, Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Counsel for appellant also attempted to elicit testimony concerning the bad general reputation of the victim. He excepted to the trial judge's refusal to allow such testimony. The general reputation of the victim was immaterial and irrelevant. In Anderson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 124, 2 So.2d 461 (1941) the Court of Appeals held:
Counsel for appellant next asked if a witness knew the victim's general reputation in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perry v. State
...that it is inconceivable that appellant could have been misled or prejudiced thereby. See Jackson v. State, supra; Holloman v. State, 349 So.2d 131 (Ala.Crim.App.1977); Westfaul v. State, 56 Ala.App. 519, 323 So.2d 404, cert. denied, 295 Ala. 427, 323 So.2d 406 (1975); Rupert v. State, supr......
-
Bracewell v. State
...is gruesome a ground for excluding it from evidence where it sheds light on the ferocity of attack and nature of wounds. Holloman v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 349 So.2d 131. Appellant next urges that his confession, reduced to writing on January 23, 1978, was involuntarily given and should not ha......
-
Perry v. State
...appellant's brother was improper because the inquiry was not limited to a particular bad trait of the victim. See Holloman v. State, 349 So.2d 131, 133 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). The appellant also complains that he was not permitted to offer evidence that the victim had been selling drugs in front......
-
Houston v. State
...Ms. Reeves's character was irrelevant and immaterial. See Hall v. State, 208 Ala. 199, 202, 94 So. 59, 62 (1922); Holloman v. State, 349 So.2d 131, 133 (Ala.Cr.App.1977). Thus, the questions of whether Ms. Reeves was only 18, whether she had lied about her age, and whether she was dating a ......