Quinn v. State

• Decision Date: 31 August 1976
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 797
• Citation: 337 So.2d 162
• Parties: William H. QUINN, alias v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 162

337 So.2d 162

William H. QUINN, alias v. STATE.

8 Div. 797.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 31, 1976.

James L. Hunt, Tuscumbia, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARRIS, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of burglary in the first degree and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. Attended by counsel at arraignment he pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant filed a petition to have his mental competency determined. He was sent to the Alabama State Hospital for observation and examination. The hospital staff composed of three psychiatrists certified that after examination it was their opinion, separately, jointly and collectively, that appellant was sane and competent at the time of his admission to Bryce Hospital, and further that he was sane and competent at the time of the commission of the offense for which he was charged. When this report was filed, appellant withdrew his special plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and went to trial on his not guilty plea. After sentence was imposed, appellant gave notice of appeal and was found to be indigent. He was furnished a free transcript and trial counsel was appointed to represent him on appeal.

Omitting the formal parts the indictment reads as follows:

'The Grand Jury of said County charge that before the finding of this Indictment William H. Quinn, Alias Boomer Quinn whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury than as stated, did, in the nighttime, with the intent to steal, break into and enter the inhabited dwelling house of Jimmy Wayne Hines, and Betty Hines, located at 1405 Burroughs Avenue, Muscle Shoals, Alabama, said Jimmy Wayne Hines and Betty Hines being the owners of said dwelling house, and in possession of said dwelling house, and at said time, Carol Dickinson, Brigette Hines, Shawn Hines, Timmy Moore and Keith Moore, were the persons lodged therein, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.'

This is a two-volume record covering approximately 400 pages of the transcript but the only real issue raised by appellant concerns the identification procedures utilized by the investigating officers. We will condense our recital of the facts accordingly. The facts concerning the crime are not in conflict except the guilt vel non of appellant as one of the perpetrators.

At 7 o'clock p.m. on April 12, 1975, Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Hines whose home address was 1405 Burroughs Avenue, Muscle Shoals, Colbert County, Alabama, left their home to go to a country club where Mrs. Hines had a singing engagement with a band that was playing for a function at the club that night. They left their children, Shawn, age nine, and bridgett, age eight, and two visitors, Timmy and Keith Moore, ages 11 and nine, respectively, at their home in care of a baby-sitter, Carol Dickinson, age 13. Carol lived with her family across the street from the Hines' home.

Around 8:30 p.m. Carol received the first of three telephone calls. The first two of these calls consisted only of 'clicks.' These 'clicking' calls coupled with the other children hearing noises outside, prompted Carol to take the children to her home across the street. They returned with Carol's older brother and a friend who was visiting him. Carol's brother and his friend checked around the house and yard before leaving. While they were still there, the third telephone call came in and the friend answered it and gave the receiver to Carol. The caller learned in his conversation with Carol that Mr. and Mrs. Hines were not due back for several hours. The caller told Carol that he had some papers for Mr. Hines and wanted to come to the house and leave the papers. Carol agreed.

After Carol's brother and friend left, Carol went about the normal procedures of preparing the children for bed. Carol had the four children take baths and while so doing she made popcorn for them and they looked at television. At about 9 o'clock the three boys looked out a front window and observed two men, one masked, with guns. They reported this to Carol who was somewhat skeptical of the report and went to check for herself. She observed nothing except the outside light was off and would not come on when she flipped the switch. A few moments before the light was on. Shawn Hines knew what he had seen and suspected the worst and he immediately went to the telephone, dialed '0' and told the operator to send the police. In the meantime there was a knock at the door. Over the protest of one of the boys Carol went to the door and a male voice said, 'This is Mr. Hines' papers.' Carol unlocked and opened the door and a masked man shoved the door and Carol back and entered the house, followed by the unmasked man. Of the five young persons in the house only one observed the unmasked man long enough to identify him. Timmy Moore hid behind the dining room table when the thieves first came in the house and observed the burglar putting on his mask. The burglars tied and gagged the boys and Carol with tape. Bridgett Hines was pulled from her bath and was also tied and gagged.

After tying and gagging the children the burglars began to ransack the house. A gun cabinet was smashed and 15 to 20 guns and rifles were placed near the front door. However, as a result of the quick action of Shawn Hines the police arrived within minutes of the burglary. One officer looked in a window and saw the five children bound and gagged lying on their stomachs on the floor of the living room. The officers made themselves known and ordered the burglars to come out. The thieves left the house by a rear window and escaped, abandoning appellant's car which was parked in front of the house. Appellant admitted owning the automobile but claimed it was stolen. The alleged theft of the automobile was noticed only after the burglary and was reported stolen only after appellant learned of a police bulletin (APB) on one Spencer Burns in whose name the automobile was registered.

After escaping from the Hines' home the burglars went to the Shop Rite Store nearby and took a cab to their places of residence.

There were three eyewitnesses to various events surrounding the burglary and the identity of the participants, and the pretrial identification procedures used on each were different.

After the burglary the children were shown a number of photographs including two of appellant, one showing his broken or missing front tooth, the other not showing it. None of the children was able to identify the burglars except Timmy Moore. He immediately identified the photographs of appellant. Carol Dickinson said, 'I believe that this might be one,' pointing to one of the other photographs. To this Timmy Moore immediately replied, 'No,...