Kendrick v. State, 4 Div. 537
Decision Date | 26 July 1977 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 537 |
Citation | 356 So.2d 1222 |
Parties | Edward Arnold KENDRICK and Sarah Rolanda Kendrick v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Earl V. Johnson, Andalusia, for appellants.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and John B. Rucker, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Indictments were returned separately against each appellant. Each was charged with unlawfully possessing, selling, furnishing, or giving away marijuana, a controlled substance, in violation of Chapter 9E, T. 22, § 258(47), Recompiled Code 1958. Trials were consolidated by agreement. The jury returned separate verdicts of guilt and separate judgments were entered pursuant to the verdicts. The court sentenced each defendant to five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. The case against Edward Arnold Kendrick is No. 6529 and against Sarah Rolanda Kendrick is No. 6530. The appeals here are consolidated.
Appellants make only one contention of prejudicial error. That is, over objection of defendant, the district attorney, in an opening statement to the jury, said:
" * * *
Appellant's counsel correctly asserts in his brief (with citations) as follows:
It appears from the testimony of Deputy Don Harrell (R. 47 and 48) that neither he nor anyone in his presence threatened or abused Mrs. Kendrick to get her to make a statement; nor did they offer her any reward to get her to talk or make any sort of statement. This evidence was before the jury. Thus, it appears that sufficient predicate was laid as a preliminary to the introduction of the statement.
Hence, there was no error in permitting the opening statement, supra. The statement was within the confines of the evidence. Pope v. State, 174 Ala. 63, 57 So. 245(4).
We pretermit discussing other reasons why the ruling of the court was free of error.
We find no error in the record. Both judgments are affirmed.
The foregoing opinion was prepared by the Honorable Bowen W. Simmons, a retired Circuit Judge, serving as a Judge of this Court, under the provisions of § 6.10...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robinson v. State, 1 Div. 219
...trial court to determine whether or not a confession is voluntary. Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586, 179 So.2d 714 (1965); Kendrick v. State, 356 So.2d 1222 (Ala.Cr.App.1977); Reynolds v. State, 346 So.2d 979 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 986 Although it is generally recognized that a ......
- King v. State, 3 Div. 665