Lewis v. State, 6 Div. 701
Decision Date | 17 April 1979 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 701 |
Citation | 372 So.2d 882 |
Parties | Louie Ellis LEWIS, alias, v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
C. Michael Quinn, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State, appellee.
Rape; sentence: life imprisonment.
The record indicates that the alleged offense occurred on December 7, 1976, a little after 1:00 p. m. at Park Manor Apartments, Birmingham, Alabama, in the office/apartment of the resident manager. The prosecutrix was the resident manager. The evidence for the State revealed that the appellant entered the prosecutrix's apartment on the pretext of filling out an application to rent an apartment. While inside the apartment, appellant forced the prosecutrix at gunpoint to submit to sexual intercourse against her will.
The prosecutrix was then dragged naked around the apartment in search of money. The appellant repeatedly threatened to blow her head off and forced her to give him what money she had in the apartment. He then told her, "you know I can't leave you to identify me." When she began begging appellant not to kill her, he gagged her and tied her hands behind her back.
The prosecutrix testified that, as the appellant was pulling her into the bathroom to kill her, a tenant began "banging" on the door of her apartment. The tenant knew something was wrong and was calling her name. The appellant then took the prosecutrix into a bedroom, shoved her face down on the floor and left. He told her he was going to get his van and return for her typewriter and television set, and if she made a sound, he would blow her head off or that of anyone else who came into the apartment. When he left, she managed to free one hand, undo the gag, and call to the tenant outside to call the police. The police arrived shortly thereafter and took the prosecutrix to the hospital.
A positive identification of the appellant was made by the prosecutrix at trial and at a police lineup. Expert testimony established that the appellant's fingerprints were on discarded application forms found in the apartment.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred by refusing to give the following written requested jury charges:
The proposition of law in refused Charge No. 1 was adequately covered in the trial court's oral charge. Title 7, § 273, Code of Ala. 1940 (§ 12-16-13, Code of Ala. 1975). The pertinent portion of the trial court's oral charge is as follows:
The appellant contends that the primary evidence in the case was circumstantial, therefore, requiring the trial judge to give his requested Charges No. 3, 4, and 10. His contention is that the admission into evidence of the appellant's fingerprints on the applications and admission of the composite sketch of the appellant's likeness were circumstantial evidence against him.
While some circumstantial evidence was admitted in the trial, it was not the primary evidence upon which the appellant's conviction was based. The appellant's fingerprints upon the applications found in the prosecutrix's apartment is only cumulative evidence of her direct testimony that he was in the apartment and is likewise cumulative of the appellant's own testimony that he had been present in the apartment on the date in question. The composite sketch of the appellant's likeness, drawn by an artist from a description given by the prosecutrix, was cumulative of her testimony making a positive identification of the appellant as her assailant. Had the evidence against appellant consisted only of the composite sketch and his fingerprints on the application forms, then instructions to the jury concerning circumstantial evidence would have been in order. However, the primary evidence in the instant...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carpenter v. State, 6 Div. 154
...evidence and to have given the requested charge would have unduly emphasized the circumstantial evidence. See, Lewis v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 372 So.2d 882, cert. denied, Ala., 372 So.2d 885 (1979); and cases cited therein. See generally, Murrell v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 377 So.2d 1102, cert. d......
-
McGee v. State
...did not request either the affirmative charge or file a motion for a new trial challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Lewis v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 372 So.2d 882, cert. denied, Ala., 372 So.2d 885 (1979); Sprinkle v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 368 So.2d 554, cert. denied, Ala., 368 So. 565 Th......
-
Julius v. State
...a consideration of all the evidence. Jones and Weatherford, supra; Johnson v. State, 55 Ala.App. 581, 317 So.2d 548 (1975); Lewis v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 372 So.2d 882, cert. denied Ala., 372 So.2d 885 OPINION EXTENDED, APPLICATION OVERRULED. DeCARLO and BOOKOUT, JJ., concur. HARRIS, P. J., ......
-
Miller v. State
...established that one of these procedures must be followed in order to properly preserve the issue for appellate review. Lewis v. State, 372 So.2d 882 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 372 So.2d 885 The record and transcript of evidence shows that the district attorney filed a timely motion to ha......