Johnson v. State, 3 Div. 157

Decision Date25 September 1973
Docket Number3 Div. 157
Citation51 Ala.App. 172,283 So.2d 624
PartiesJames JOHNSON, alias v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

John D. Cates, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and J. Victor Price, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON, Supernumerary Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted of a violation of § 174(a), Title 14, Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, and sentenced to imprisonment for two years in the penitentiary. Subsection (a) of § 174, supra, reads as follows:

'No person who has been convicted in this state or elsewhere of committing or attempting to commit a crime of violence shall own a pistol or have one in his possession or under his control.'

By stipulation between the appellant and the State it was admitted that appellant had heretofore been convicted of murder and served a part of his sentence of thirty years.

The testimony adduced by the State tends to show that on November 15, 1971, one Dean Shade of Montgomery, Alabama, was at the home of one of the women he stayed with. The appellant came by the lady's house because he owed her a dollar and wished to pay her. Upon seeing Shade there, the appellant asked if Shade had anything to drink. Shade did have some gin that he and his lady friend had been drinking all weekend and about one-half of a pint remained.

The appellant offered to pay a dollar for a drink, and Shade agreed to sell him one. Being a man who had something to drink everyday with a reputation of being a heavy drinker, Shade also poured himself the remainder of the gin.

After finishing his drink, the appellant got up to leave indicating that he would not come across with the promised dollar. Shade made a move to enforce his right to be paid, and the appellant pulled a shiny pistol out of his belt. Shade knocked the gun from his hand (the appellant had only one hand), then proceeded to cut the appellant on the face and arm with a knife and strike him about the head with a hammer.

The appellant finally left the presence of Shade thus giving Shade an opportunity to inspect the shiny pistol that had been abandoned by the appellant. Close inspection showed the 'firearm' to be loaded with paper caps. The gun in question was identified by Shade at the appellant's trial. Shade testified that the gun introduced looked like the one he had taken from the appellant, and that he (Shade) had himself possessed a 'heap' of guns during his life.

The appellant did not long remain absent from the apartment housing Dean Shade. He returned within minutes, carrying in his one hand, a sawed-off shotgun. The appellant then proceeded to fire three times (re-loading after each shot) at Shade. Shade managed to get within reaching distance of the appellant, but appellant then fled into a nearby apartment carrying the sawed-off shotgun in his hand. Its barrel was measured at less than twelve inches.

A short time later the Montgomery City Police arrived and found the appellant sitting on his front porch. After making a brief investigation the police officer carried the appellant around to Shade's apartment. On the way to this apartment the appellant was fully advised of his rights. While in the apartment occupied by Shade, the appellant stated that the shiny pistol in question was his. The appellant was next asked about the sawed-off shotgun and denied ownership of this weapon even though his denial prompted Shade to make a direct threat on his life. However, the shotgun in question was found in the apartment into which the appellant had fled. Officer Wingard testified that the appellant was intoxicated but not drunk, and that he would not have arrested either the witness Shade or appellant for public drunkenness, although he could smell liquor on the breath of each.

Both the pistol and shotgun were introduced into evidence by the State over the objection of appellant. The pistol was identified as Exhibit 2 and the shotgun as Exhibit 3. The court admitted the statement of appellant to Officer Wingard as to his ownership of the pistol, but refused to admit any statement with regard to the shotgun.

The appellant testified that neither the pistol nor shotgun was his, and that Shade pulled a pistol during the altercation in the house between the appellant and Shade. He further testified that he and Shade had been drinking at the time.

Upon completion of the testimony, appellant made a motion to exclude the State's evidence, Exhibits 2 and 3, and the testimony of Officer Wingard. Appellant moved the court to grant a directed verdict because the corpus deliciti had not been proved, and there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a conviction. These motions were overruled by the court.

Appellant argues that the statement alleged to have been made by him to Officer Wingard that the pistol, Exhibit 2, belonged to him was erroneously admitted in evidence. Appellant contends that at the time it was made he was in an intoxicated condition amounting to mania or such impairment of mind and will as to make him unconscious of the meaning of his words, thereby rendering the statement inadmissible. He cites Warren v. State, 44 Ala.App. 221, 205 So.2d 916, cert. denied 281 Ala. 725, 205 So.2d 920 and Ray v. State, 39 Ala.App. 257, 97 So.2d 594.

We recognize the principle of law involved in this contention, but we distinguish the facts in the case at bar from those in Warren v. State, supra, which were much stronger in favor of the appellant's contention.

In Ray v. State, supra, which was affirmed, the court said:

'Ray's intoxication as affecting his ability to confess voluntarily is primarily a question of fact which addressed itself for admissibility to the trial judge and for credibility (and weight) to the jury. There is nothing in this record on which we can say the trial judge abused his discretion since we conclude that there must be shown a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Allen v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 9 Abril 1974
    ...language has been the determinant of whether one's confession, if otherwise admissible, should be admitted in evidence. Johnson v. State, 51 Ala.App. 172, 283 So.2d 624, Ray v. State, 39 Ala.App. 257, 97 So.2d 594, Smith v. State, 25 Ala.App. 297, 145 So. 504. The test is equally applicable......
  • Gholston v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 31 Agosto 1976
    ...the verdict is wrong and unjust. Swinney v. State,225 Ala. 273, 142 So. 562; Curtis v. State, 226 Ala. 29, 145 So. 430; Johnson v. State, 51 Ala.App. 172, 283 So.2d 624. Raised for the first time in Alabama is the question whether the offense of selling marihuana is a crime involving moral ......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 16 Marzo 1976
    ...in the discretion of the trial court and the exercise of this discretion carries with it a presumption of correctness. Johnson v. State, 51 Ala.App. 172, 283 So.2d 624; Moore v. State, 52 Ala.App. 179, 290 So.2d We have carefully searched the record for errors injuriously affecting the subs......
  • Linson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 3 Febrero 1981
    ...the trial court's denial of the motion to exclude, the requested affirmative charge, and the motion for a new trial. See Johnson v. State, 51 Ala.App. 172, 283 So.2d 624; Jones v. State, 40 Ala.App. 419, 114 So.2d We have searched the record and find no error prejudicial to the appellant; t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT