Mosley v. City of Auburn, 5 Div. 660
| Decision Date | 23 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 660 |
| Citation | 428 So.2d 165 |
| Parties | Charles MOSLEY v. CITY OF AUBURN. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
J. Michael Williams, Sr., Auburn, for appellant.
Arnold W. Umbach, Jr. of Walker, Hill, Adams, Umbach, Herndon & Dean, Opelika, for appellee.
The defendant was charged by separate complaints and convicted in the municipal court of Auburn of municipal violations of reckless endangerment (Alabama Code Section 13A-6-24 (1975)) and harassment (Section 13A-11-8(a)(1)(b)). On appeal from municipal court he was tried by a jury for the same offenses and found guilty of the lesser included offenses of "menacing" (Section 13A-6-23) and "disorderly conduct" (Section 13A-11-7). Sentences were six months and three months, respectively, in the city jail, the sentences to run concurrently.
On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support each conviction and argues that the trial court's action in permitting amendment of the "harassment" complaint over objection constitutes error.
After a thorough review, we are convinced that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the convictions for menacing and disorderly conduct.
At approximately 7:30 on the morning of November 4, 1981, Gregory Lotz and Kathleen Fry were "warming up" Lotz's new motorcycle in front of a fraternity house in Auburn. The motorcycle was partially blocking the sidewalk. The defendant was walking on the sidewalk and motioned for Lotz to move. Lotz asked him to "go around" because he did not want to move his motorcycle until it had "warmed up". An exchange of words followed.
Lotz, Fry and another eyewitness, William Eastis, testified that, after words were exchanged, the defendant threatened to kill Lotz, pushed him at least half a dozen times, and "slashed" at Lotz and Eastis with a pocketknife. The defendant admitted that he had decided that Lotz and Fry were "looking for trouble" and that he had his pocketknife out, but denied threatening Lotz verbally or with the pocketknife. He claimed that he "flashed" the knife at Lotz to warn him in case Lotz intended to "start something". The defendant admitted shoving Lotz twice.
The crime of "menacing" requires that the perpetrator, by physical action, intentionally place or attempt to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury. Section 13A-6-23(a). Although the defendant's testimony was to the contrary, the testimony of the three other witnesses to the incident was more than sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendant's actions constituted an attempt to place Lotz "in fear of imminent serious physical injury."
Lotz and Eastis further testified that the defendant repeatedly threatened Lotz, stating that if Lotz did not get out of his way he was going to "kill (his) honky ass." They further testified that each time the defendant shoved Lotz he would retort, "Go ahead and hit me so I can kill your M------F------ honky ass." The defendant admitted taunting Lotz in an attempt to force Lotz to hit him so that he could retaliate but denied using obscene language.
A person is guilty of "disorderly conduct", pursuant to Section 13A-11-7(a)(3), "if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he, in a public place, uses abusive or obscene language or makes an obscene gesture." The commentary to Section 13A-11-7 states that this "abusive or obscene language" is very narrow and applies only to "fighting words". Using this narrow application of the statute, the testimony of Lotz and Eastis was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summers v. Martin
...So. 2d 944, 950 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984))73; see also L.M.A.W. v. State, 611 So. 2d 497 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992); Mosley v. City of Auburn, 428 So. 2d 165, 166 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982), superseded on other grounds by Mason v. City of Vestavia Hills, 518 So. 2d 221 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987)."Fighting......
-
Sisson v. State
...court allowed the amendments over the defendant's objection. The trial court erred...." Wallace, supra at 99. In Mosley v. City of Auburn, 428 So.2d 165 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), this court held that the circuit court, on appeal from the municipal court, properly allowed the prosecution to amend......
-
South v. City of Mountain Brook
...So.2d 112, 113 (Ala.Cr.App.1992) (applying Swann v. City of Huntsville, 455 So.2d 944, 950 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), and Mosley v. City of Auburn, 428 So.2d 165, 166 (Ala.Cr.App.1982), superseded on other grounds, Mason v. City of Vestavia Hills, 518 So.2d 221 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), wherein this Court......
-
Mason v. City of Vestavia Hills
...and as long as the amendment did not introduce a new or different offense from that described in the affidavit, Mosley v. City of Auburn, 428 So.2d 165, 167 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Gober v. City of Birmingham, 41 Ala.App. 313, 133 So.2d 697, cert. denied, 272 Ala. 704, 133 So.2d 702 (1961), reve......