Ray v. State, CR-05-0912.
Decision Date | 29 June 2007 |
Docket Number | CR-05-0912. |
Parties | Thomas Chester RAY, Jr. v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William R. Willard, Gadsden, for appellant.
Troy King, atty. gen., and John J. Davis, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
On Application for Rehearing
This Court's opinion of January 12, 2007, is hereby withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.
The appellant, Thomas Chester Ray, Jr., was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree, a violation of § 13A-6-66(a)(1), Ala.Code 1975. He was sentenced to 10 years in the state penitentiary.
The State's evidence tended to show the following: The victim, M.M.,1 who is mentally retarded, testified that she lived with her mother and Ray when she was around 9 or 10 years of age. She said that on two occasions Ray made her put lotion on his "privates" and rub him. M.M. also testified that he told her not to tell anyone or he would beat her. She said that Ray was physically abusive and beat her with shoes, switches, and belts.
The testimony also showed that M.M. and her sister were removed from their mother in 2003 and that a guardian was appointed for the children at that time. M.M. told her guardian that Ray made her put lotion on his penis. The guardian testified that she immediately reported M.M.'s statement to the Department ofHuman Resources. Ray was ultimately charged with sexual abuse in the first degree.
Ray testified in his own defense and was questioned about a statement he gave to Detective Teri Davis of the Gadsden Police Department. In the statement Ray told police that he had never touched the victim in a sexual way. The circuit court then allowed the prosecutor to question Det. Davis about a prior juvenile adjudication that was also brought out during Ray's statement to Det. Davis.
Ray first argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to impeach him with evidence about a prior juvenile adjudication from the State of Ohio. Specifically, he argues that the admission of the juvenile adjudication to impeach him violated Rule 609(d), Ala.R.Evid., and statutory law.
Rule 609(d), Ala.R.Evid., provides: "[E]vidence of a juvenile or youthful offender adjudications is not admissible under this rule." Section 12-15-72(b), Ala.Code 1975, provides in part: "The disposition of a child and evidence given in a hearing in the court shall not be admissible as evidence against him in any case or proceeding in any other court whether before or after reaching majority...."
The State argues that Ray opened the door to the introduction of evidence of the prior juvenile adjudication when he discussed the prior juvenile adjudication in his statement to Det. Davis. The State further asserts that the prior juvenile adjudication was properly admitted to show motive.
During Ray's direct examination, the following occurred:
(R. 243-45.)
The circuit court then allowed the prosecutor to question Ray about other portions of this statement. Specifically, in this statement Ray told Det. Davis that there had been a previous incident with his 8-year-old niece when he was in Cleveland, Ohio; that he was only 16 years old at the time of the incident; that the incident involved "sexual contact"; and that he had completed a sex-offender-treatment program as a result of that offense. Although only that portion of Ray's statement in which he denied any sexual contact with the victim in the present case was reduced to writing, during the colloquy outside the presence of the jury the circuit court ascertained from Det. Davis that Ray had admitted the juvenile adjudication during the same conversation.
Alabama has long held that when one party introduces a portion of a conversation, the opposing party has the right to introduce the remainder of that conversation to the extent that it relates to the subject matter of the part of the conversation already introduced. See Flournoy v. State, 34 Ala.App. 23, 27, 37 So.2d 218, 221 (1948) ( . This doctrine is often referred to as the doctrine of completeness.
Rule 106, Ala.R.Evid., now addresses this doctrine and provides, in part:
"When a party introduces part of either a writing or recorded statement, an adverse party may require the introduction at that time of any other part of the writing or statement that ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it."
However, Rule 106, Ala.R.Evid., does not apply to oral statements.
In Stockard v. State, 391 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1980), the Alabama Supreme Court relied on the doctrine of completeness to hold that the circuit court correctly allowed the introduction of an entire conversation held outside of the defendant's presence after the defendant first introduced a portion of that conversation into evidence. In reversing this Court's decision in Stockard v. State, 391 So.2d 1060 (Ala.1979), the Supreme Court stated:
391 So.2d at 1064. This rule of admissibility has frequently been applied in Alabama cases. See, e.g., Ex parte Tucker, 474 So.2d 134, 135 (Ala.1985) (); Logan v. State, 291 Ala. 497, 502, 282 So.2d 898, 903 (1973) (); Lewis v. State, 549 So.2d 620, 622 (Ala.Crim.App.1989) ( ); and Charles W. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 316.01 (5th ed. 1996) (), and the cases cited therein. See also Calhoun v. State, 932 So.2d 923, 959 (Ala.Crim.App.2005); McClellan v. State, 452 So.2d 909 (Ala.Crim.App.1984).
Moreover, many other jurisdictions follow the holding in Stockard. See Walters v. State, 206 S.W.3d 780, 785 (Tex.App.2006) (); Barone v. State, 841 So.2d 653, 655 n. 2 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003) (); Nickell v. Russell, 260 Neb. 1, 11, 614 N.W.2d 349, 357 (2000) ( ); State v. Eugenio, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Campos v. State
...with her hands. K.S. testified to that fact herself, and this testimony was sufficient to establish sexual contact. See Ray v. State, 52 So.3d 547 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), reversed on other grounds, 52 So.3d 555 (Ala.2009) (holding that the element of sexual contact could be satisfied when the ......
-
D.L.R. v. State
...Therefore, the circuit court committed no error in denying Ray's motion for a judgment of acquittal. See Holley. "Ray v. State, 52 So.3d 547, 552–53 (Ala.Crim.App.2007), rev'd on other grounds, 52 So.3d 555 (Ala.2009).To convict D.L.R. of sexual abuse of a child less than 12 years old, the ......
-
Albright v. Poe
... ... See J. Bryant, LLC v. City of Birmingham, 23 So.3d 675, 677 (Ala.Civ.App.2009) (citing Ruzic v. State ex rel. Thornton, 866 So.2d 564, 568-69 (Ala.Civ.App.2003), abrogated on other grounds by F.G. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 988 So.2d 555 ... ...
-
Ex parte Ray
...sentenced Ray to 10 years' imprisonment. On appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Ray's conviction and sentence. Ray v. State, 52 So.3d 547 (Ala.Crim.App.2007). This Court granted Ray's petition for a writ of certiorari. The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in admit......