Prince v. State, 8 Div. 338
| Citation | 50 Ala.App. 644,282 So.2d 83 |
| Decision Date | 21 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 338 |
| Parties | Ruby PRINCE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas & Proctor, Scottsboro, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted for burglary of a motor vehicle with intent to steal. Title 14, § 87, Recompiled Code 1958. By consent of the defendant and her counsel, the indictment was amended to put ownership of the vehicle in T. B. Gann instead of Carolyn Gann. Title 15, § 253, Recompiled Code 1958. Following the jury verdict of guilt, the trial court fixed appellant's punishment at two years imprisonment in the penitentiary.
It appears from the evidence that the vehicle was parked in a parking area where Carolyn Gann left it after closing the doors with her coat and diaper bag inside. When she returned to the vehicle, these items were missing. A witness testified he saw the defendant get out of the parked vehicle. He did not see defendant with the coat and diaper bag. There was other evidence implicating the defendant. She admitted on the witness stand that she possessed the coat; but claimed she bought it at a sale for $20.00.
Officer Keith Smith, an investigator for the Scottsboro Police Department, testified that Miss Carolyn Gann reported the loss of the coat and other items, and that he procured a magistrate search warrant and found the reported missing items in the home of the defendant and her husband. The original search warrant and affidavit were misplaced, and a duplicate affidavit and search warrant were offered into evidence in lieu of the originals. With respect to the warrant and affidavit attached thereto, the following colloquy took place:
'Mr. Black (for the State): We now offer that in evidence as State's Exhibit No. 3.
'Mr. Haralson (for defendant): We object.
'The Court: Mr. Smith, who had custody of the original search warrant, of which this is a copy?
'Mr. Smith: I got the search warrant from Judge Haislip and I had the original search warrant at the time of the search, but between this time and that it has been misplaced.
'The Court: Have you made a diligent search for the original?
'Mr. Smith: Yes, sir, this morning.
'The Court: And you were unable to find it?
'Mr. Smith: That is right.
'The Court: You made this copy yourself?
'Mr. Smith: I ran it off myself.
'The Court: It is an exact reproduction?
'Mr. Smith: Yes, sir.
'The Court: I overrule the objections.
'Mr. Haralson (for defendant): We except.'
The defendant, for the first time when she filed her motion for a new trial, raised the constiutional validity of the search warrant due to the alleged absence of probable cause, which she contends is reflected in the attached affidavit. The general objection, supra, without stating any grounds therefor, is insufficient. The Supreme Court in Brown v. State, 229 Ala. 58, 155 So. 358(7), observed:
* * *'
This court observed the same pronouncement in Israel v. State, 35 Ala.App. 317, 47 So.2d 234(5).
Motion for a new trial, as here, cannot take the place of a particularized objection to the introduction of evidence and cannot be predicated on the introduction of exhibits which were not subject to particularized objections during the progress of the trial. Code 1940, Title 7, § 776; Riley v. Srofe, 35 Ala.App. 222, 45 So.2d 328.
The trial court was free of error in admitting in evidence Exhibit No. 3, the search warrant and affidavit.
Appellant here complains that the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of John Edmondson, a Scottsboro...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pugh v. State
...take the place of an objection to the introduction of evidence. Riley v. Srofe, 35 Ala.App. 222, 45 So.2d 328 (1950); Prince v. State, 50 Ala.App. 644, 282 So.2d 83 (1973). Alleged error in the admission of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on motion for new trial. Smith v. State......
-
Steele v. State
...are rested, but may promptly disregard them...." Cited in Wilder v. State, 52 Ala.App. 157, 290 So.2d 225 (1974); Prince v. State, 50 Ala.App. 644, 282 So.2d 83 (1973). Therefore, the appellant, by his general objections, has presented nothing for this court to The only specific objection r......
-
Franklin v. State
...that appellant's objection was made on the ground that it was "heresay" (sic). Defendant was bound by this ground. Prince v. State, 50 Ala.App. 644, 282 So.2d 83(4). The trial court immediately instructed the jury twice that they should not consider this evidence. These instructions were cl......
-
Sellers v. State
...specified in her objection to the admission of the testimony. She cannot here assert other grounds which are waived. Prince v. State, 50 Ala.App. 644, 282 So.2d 83(4); Vol. 6A, Ala.Digest Criminal Law k Appellant complains that the Court erred in refusing to give her written Charges Nos. 11......