Jones v. State, 6 Div. 192

• Decision Date: 17 April 1973
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 192
• Citation: 50 Ala.App. 62,276 So.2d 647
• Parties: John Henry JONES, Jr. v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 647

276 So.2d 647

50 Ala.App. 62

John Henry JONES, Jr. v. STATE.

6 Div. 192.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

April 17, 1973.

Demetrius C. Newton, Birmingham, Norman C. Amaker, Jack H. Himmelstein, Elaine R. Jones, New York City, for appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

A jury, apparently unimpressed by an amended plea of not guilty, convicted defendant of robbery as charged in an indictment and fixed his punishment at death.

The automatic appeal statute, operative under such sentence, brings the sentence and judgment here for review. Appointed counsel, aided by a New York firm of attorneys whose names appear on the brief without disclosure of their authority, brings this appeal before this Court. The brief filed for appellant is quite comprehensive and ably prepared.

The indictment alleges in substance that defendant (hereafter referred to as appellant) feloniously took from his victim, a seventeen year old white female (hereafter referred to as prosecutrix), a lady's gold Sanford wrist watch and thirty dollars in lawful currency, the property of prosecutrix, against her will by violence, etc., against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.

The genesis of the alleged robbery was at an automobile parking lot adjacent to Lloyd Nolan Hospital in Ensley, Jefferson County, where prosecutrix had gone in an Oldsmobile belonging to her brother-in-law to take her brother for emergency treatment of physical injury. This was on Saturday, September 13, 1969. Prosecutrix, on the same day about 2:30 P.M., returned to the parking lot to move the automobile, thereby accommodating the convenience of her injured brother.

Prosecutrix testified that as she entered the automobile appellant, whom she identified at a lineup and at the trial as her assailant, tried unsuccessfully to open the rear door which was locked. Having failed at the rear door, he then opened the front door on the driver's side, where prosecutrix was sitting, pointed a pistol at her and ordered her not to scream ad to move over. Prosecutrix obeyed. Further testifying, prosecutrix said appellant told her that he wanted her money and backed the car out, proceeded forward and after reaching the street, took a circuitous route (which we will not detail) and finally stopped the car in a wooded area several miles from the parking area. En route, under pressure and threats, prosecutrix gave him thirty dollars in currency in response to his demand; also he took her Sanford wrist watch after they reached the wooded area; in addition he took a couple of dollars (not mentioned in the indictment) from the pocket of the automobile.

After they reached the wooded area, prosecutrix testified to appellant's physical attack on her person, culminating in sexual intercourse with her by force and physical abuse and threats. We deem it unnecessary to delineate the details of the attack, but suffice it to say that appellant, according to prosecutrix, finally overcame her resistance by force and by threats to use the pistol in his possession. He dragged her from the automobile in a very cruel manner to a point on the ground where the sexual penetration occurred.

After the embrace, appellant tried to force her into the automobile, but failing, he then tried to run the automobile over her after he had fouled her further resistance. She managed to roll from the path on two occasions to escape the impact of the automobile against her person. He then seized her, put her in the trunk of the automobile, locked the trunk door, and proceeded to drive the automobile over terrain which the prosecutrix took to be an embankment, where it was found the following day (Sunday afternoon) by a searching party. She was still locked in the trunk and suffering from physical injuries and exposure. She was taken to the hospital for examination and treatment. The injuries were not serious.

Appellant testified, followed by supporting witnesses, that he was in Faunsdale and Uniontown, Marengo County, on September 13, 1969, and was not in Jefferson County at the time of the alleged offense. He denied pawning a Sanford watch at a pawn shop in Jefferson County. The State offered an original pawn ticket taken from appellant's person, which matched a duplicate pawn ticket. The State also offered the pawned watch, which prosecutrix identified as hers. Dr. C. H. Rehling, who qualified as a handwriting expert, testified that the signatures, 'J. H. Jones,' on the pawn tickets were in his opinion the same as some genuine signatures of appellant in evidence.

Following voir dire examination out of the presence of the jury, the trial court admitted in evidence a signed confession of appellant wherein he admitted that while in possession of a 'little blank pistol' he accosted a girl at the Lloyd Nolan Hospital and stated, 'I told her to give me her money and I pushed her then got in the car.' The confession further states, 'I shoved her over and drove down the hill and then through Ensley and there to the woods.' The confession also states, 'I stopped the car and she jumped out, we tussled. I remember falling against a tree and the next thing I remember I was hitch hiking.' He did not remember other details about trying to run over her, raping her, putting her in the trunk of the car, and running the car off an embankment. He contended he was drinking wine and taking aspirin for a severe headache that morning. The alleged confession covers five legal pages of type, question and answer form, and relates many pertinent details for consideration of the jury.

We do not think the trial court erred in admitting this signed instrument over defendant's objection. The statement was taken on June 7, 1969, on the day of defendant's arrest, in the interrogation room of the city jail, in the presence of four city detectives, one of whom, Detective Gullion, did the interrogating. Evidence was adduced on voir dire and during the trial, that the interrogator warned appellant of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The evidence of the witness made specific reference to these rights. In other words, they were spelled out.

The defendant contended that he was suffering from a severe headache when in the interrogating room with the officers, and asked to be given some medication for his pain; that one of the officers gave him two capsules which he swallowed; and that soon thereafter he was 'knocked out' and didn't remember anything until the next morning. He denied the signature on the confessory instrument was his. The officer denied giving him these capsules. The trial court, after hearing the evidence on voir dire, admitted the document. As stated above, we will not disturb the ruling of the trial court.

There...