Hyman v. State, 3 Div. 528
Decision Date | 31 August 1976 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 528 |
Citation | 338 So.2d 448 |
Parties | Elizabeth K. HYMAN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Louis Wilkinson, Birmingham, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Jack A. Blumenfeld, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of robbery and the jury fixed her punishment at ten years in the penitentiary. She was represented at arraignment and trial by retained counsel who represents her on this appeal. She pleaded not guilty. After conviction she gave notice of appeal on March 4, 1976. Appellant is not indigent.
The Attorney General filed a motion to strike the transcript of the evidence on the ground that the reporter's transcript was not filed until June 16, 1976, more than 56 days from the date on which the appeal was taken, and there were no extensions of time for said filing. Neither was there a motion for a new trial filed in this cause.
This motion of the Attorney General is due to be granted unless we suspend the rules and accept the reporter's transcript and consider the case on its merits.
It is, therefore, ordered that under Rule 2(b) the provisions of Rule 11(b) be and the same are hereby suspended and the appeal in this case will be considered on its merits.
It is undisputed that on August 19, 1975, between the hours of 8:00 and 8:30 a.m., the Southside Drug Company located at 4316 South Court Street was robbed by two gunmen, one carrying a .20 gauge sawed-off shotgun. The evidence for the State tended to show that Mrs. Merle Sasser, an employee of the drugstore, opened the store for business that morning between 7:30 and 8:00, and she waited on a number of customers before Mr. Rex Riggins the pharmacist came on duty. According to Mrs. Sasser's testimony one of the men entered the store alone and purchased a bottle of shampoo from her, and he left the store stating that he had something in his car he forgot and would be back. She described this person as very neat with short hair, wearing a pair of blue jeans and a maroon colored sweat shirt. She stated that when he returned to the store, he was accompanied by another man who had dark hair and had it pulled back in a ponytail, that he was dressed in a pair of jeans and a man's undershirt.
She further testified that when they returned, there were some customers in the store and that the blond boy came toward the back where she was and the other dark haired boy was looking at some papers at the bottom of the magazine rack.
She stated that when Mr. Riggins came in, the blond haired boy pulled a shotgun and stuck it in Mr. Riggins' face and told him that this was a stickup and that he wanted all of the hard drugs in the drugstore and told him to open the safe. Mr. Riggins told him that the safe was open whereupon the man with the gun forced both Mr. Riggins and Mrs. Sasser back to the pharmacist department and made them lie down on the floor and threatened to shoot their _ _ heads off if they would not do what they were told to do. Both Mr. Riggins and Mrs. Sasser testified that these men were not disguised in any manner but that they were loud and boisterous and continued their threats to blow their _ _ heads off all the time the robbery was going on.
Mrs. Sasser further testified that a little girl named Karen Vance came in the drugstore immediately after the robbery and that she lived only three or four blocks away. It is admitted that Karen Vance was a ten year old deaf and dumb child and could only communicate by sign language or write an answer to a question posed to her.
Her mother, Margaret Vance, testified that Karen was a very bright child in the light of her handicap by being deaf and unable to speak and that she attended school at the 'Children's Center.' She further testified that her daughter went to the Southside Drug Store some time after 8 o'clock on the morning of August 19, 1975 and rode her bicycle. The State tried to use the mother of Karen as an interpreter but this proved to be very difficult and unsatisfactory, whereupon the Court sent for her teacher at the Children's Center, Ms. Gail Woods. Ms. Woods testified that she was Karen's teacher and was a deaf education teacher and that she was trained at the University of Tennessee where she obtained a B.S. in Speech and Hearing and Psychology and a Master's Degree in Deaf Education. Ms. Woods stated that she did not have too much difficulty in communicating with the child and that the child was below normal as compared to a normal ten year old child because of her language handicap but nevertheless she did have the mental ability to learn, to grasp knowledge, but that she must first obtain the language to do so. She further testified that she had discussed with Karen the difference between right and wrong on a daily classroom basis and that in her opinion, Karen knew the difference between right and wrong and that she knew the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie.
The Court decided that Ms. Gail Woods was competent to act as an interpreter and for the lawyers to pose questions to her concerning her knowledge of the facts leading up to and culminating in the robbery and that she in turn would communicate with Karen for her answers.
Karen Vance was then called to the stand where questions were propounded by the State any by appellant's counsel. Karen testified that in September she went to the store and she saw two men and one woman near the store in a green and black car and she saw the two men walk in the store and she later saw the two men return to the car. She saw appellant drive the car away from the store and she drove very fast. She was asked to look over the courtroom and see if she could identify the person that she saw driving the car and she pointed to appellant and identified her as the driver of the green and black automobile.
Appellant's counsel questioned the competency of Karen Vance to be a witness and this was a matter that had to be determined by the trial court.
Ms. Woods was asked the following questions and gave the following responses:
vocabulary but she knows the difference between the truth and a lie and what is right and what is wrong.
The Court allowed Karen Vance's testimony to be admitted into evidence through the interpreter Ms. Gail Woods.
Detective Cody Wood of the Montgomery Police Department was assigned to investigate the robbery of the Southside Drug Store and he went to the drugstore and got a description of the gunmen from Mrs. Sasser and Mr. Riggins. His investigation took him to Birmingham on two occasions, August 22 and August 26, 1975. He saw appellant at approximately 3:00 p.m. on August 26, at the Juvenile Detention Center in Birmingham. He had received a call from the Police Department in Birmingham the previous evening, that appellant was in custody at the Juvenile Detention Center.
When Detective Wood saw appellant on August 26, 1975, he advised her of her constitutional rights under the Miranda decision and presented her with a waiver of rights form. She read the form but she refused to sign it. However, she did make a statement to Detective Wood and that statement was taken down by Detective Wood and later after returning to Montgomery, he dictated the statement from his notes into a tape recorder which was subsequently transcribed.
There was a voir dire hearing out of the presence and hearing of the jury to determine the voluntary character of the confessory statement and much testimony was taken on this issue. It was shown at this hearing that Detective Wood did advise appellant of her constitutional rights before interrogating her and it was further shown that there were no promises, threats, hope of reward or other inducements held out to appellant to get her to make a statement. The Court ruled that the appellant's statement was voluntary and that it could be read into evidence from the transcription taken from the tape recorder. The statement is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hooks v. State, 3 Div. 282
...See also Almon v. State, 21 Ala.App. 466, 109 So. 371 (1926) (interpreter was the mother of the victim-witness); Hyman v. State, 338 So.2d 448 (Ala.Crim.App.1976) (interpreter was witness's teacher); Brown v. State, 331 So.2d 820 (Ala.Crim.App.1976) (interpreter had "raised" witness and was......
-
People v. Spencer
...cross-examination to test the witness's credibility." (256 Ala. 5, 8, 53 So.2d 568, 571.) A similar result was reached in Hyman v. State (Ala.App.1976), 338 So.2d 448, in which an otherwise competent deaf and mute 10-year-old witness was permitted to testify over the defendant's objection t......
-
Doucette v. State
...affect the performance of her duties and that she interpreted the testimony to the best of her ability. Similarly, in Hyman v. State, 338 So.2d 448 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), the court upheld the trial court's ruling that the teacher of a deaf mute witness could interpret the testimony. Id. at 453.......
-
Byndom v State
...speak and knew no form of sign language were found competent to testify. See Burgess v. State, 53 So.2d 568 (Ala. 1951); Hyman v. State, 338 So.2d 448 (Ala. App. 1976); and State v. Galloway, 284 S.E.2d 509 (N.C. 1981). The court in Galloway The general rule appears to be that deaf and mute......