Peterson v. State
| Decision Date | 16 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 376 |
| Citation | 441 So.2d 1019 |
| Parties | James Clark PETERSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Roy Pitts, Meridian, Miss., for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and R. David Christy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
James Clark Peterson was convicted of burglary in the second degree and was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment under the Habitual Felony Offender Act. He raises several issues on appeal.
Appellant first contends that the state failed to prove a prima facie case. Burglary in the second degree is defined in pertinent part as follows:
"... a person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree if he unlawfully enters a lawfully occupied dwelling-house with intent to commit a theft or a felony therein." Ala.Code § 13A-7-6(b) (1975).
In this case, the undisputed evidence is that the appellant entered the residence of a family in Demopolis, Marengo County, Alabama, around 10:30 p.m. after the members of the household were in bed. The older daughter heard noises, got out of bed and went next door to her sister's room to investigate. She turned on the light and saw the appellant standing beside the child's bed with his pants down or completely off. She screamed and ran to get her parents. The sleeping girl awoke and saw the defendant leaving the room with his pants still down or off. The father of the household then pursued the appellant by car from Demopolis to Thomasville where the Thomasville Police Department stopped both cars and arrested the appellant.
The evidence indicated that the appellant had been previously convicted of indecent exposure a number of times. In addition, he also admitted that he had been convicted of "forcing a seven year-old female to suck [his] private sexual organ," and four years later he was convicted of "gratifying [his] lust by handling, touching or rubbing [his] hands on a child." Appellant testified later, however, that the latter conviction had been reversed and remanded by the Mississippi Supreme Court.
The indictment, which alleges appellant entered the dwelling-house, states that he did so "with the intent to commit a felony therein, to wit: rape." Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that intent. We find that the cases which he cites in support of his theory are distinguishable on the facts. Factually similar cases have been adverse to appellant. In Hamilton v. State, 283 Ala. 540, 219 So.2d 369 (Ala.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 868, 90 S.Ct. 134, 24 L.Ed.2d 121 (1969), a man and his wife heard a moaning yell come from the wife's grandmother's adjoining bedroom. The couple entered to see the defendant, "Standing near the door ... with his trousers off and his privates exposed and wearing neither socks or shoes." Obviously that fact situation is very similar to the fact situation in the case at bar. In Hamilton, the court found the jury was justified in finding an attempt to rape. In Simmons v. State, 40 Ala.App. 98, 108 So.2d 184 (1959), the evidence was that the defendant knocked on the front door and it was answered by a young woman. He forced his way in and the girl screamed and ran. The defendant was then frightened off by the lights of a car. The court held that the evidence was "amply" sufficient to support the verdict and judgment of an intent to ravish. There are a number of similar Alabama cases with the same result.
The appellant complains of remarks made by the district attorney during closing argument. None of those remarks appears of record. Where the objected-to remarks do not appear on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. State
...boudoir of a married woman, without pants and shoes, and with his privates exposed, after 2:00 a.m. in the morning."); Peterson v. State, 441 So.2d 1019 (Ala.Cr.App.1983) (Accused found standing beside child's bed with his pants down); Jones, 439 So.2d at 1310 (accused got in bed with victi......
-
Hartley v. State
...predicate error on the court's overruling an objection unless we know what is alleged to have been objectionable. Peterson v. State, 441 So.2d 1019 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), and cases cited Last, the appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for mistrial bas......
-
Curry v. State
...the issue for our review, appellant should have objected to the charge and stated his grounds before the jury retired. Peterson v. State, 441 So.2d 1019 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). See Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, Temporary Rule Appellant finally asserts that regardless of the standards arti......
-
Brown v. State
...fail to give a jury charge that was not requested in writing. See Fears v. State, 451 So.2d 385 (Ala.Crim.App.1984); Peterson v. State, 441 So.2d 1019 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Giles v. State, 440 So.2d 1237 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). However, in this case, the trial court permitted the State to suppl......