Reed v. State

• Decision Date: 18 March 1980
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 697
• Citation: Reed v. State, 407 So.2d 153 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980)
• Parties: Ricky Louis REED v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 153

407 So.2d 153

Ricky Louis REED v.STATE.

7 Div. 697.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 18, 1980.

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1980.

J. Louis Wilkinson, Charles M. Purvis, Birmingham, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Clenney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOOKOUT, Judge.

Robbery when the victim is intentionally killed by the defendant-s 13-11-2(a)(2), Code of Ala.1975; sentence: death by electrocution.

Around 8:00 or 8:30 p. m. on December 23, 1978, Truman P. Johnston stopped his automobile on a downtown street in Anniston to make a telephone call from a telephone booth adjacent to an abandoned restaurant.He called his wife and requested that she meet him at Sears to get a Christmas present he had selected for her.Their conversation was interrupted when she heard what she thought to be a scuffle occurring at the other telephone.She heard a voice, which was not that of her husband, saying "come on" or "that's enough."She heard nothing else over the telephone after that.She and her son-in-law then drove to Sears looking for her husband.When they were unable to find him there, they drove around town until they saw his automobile parked in front of the telephone booth and abandoned restaurant.

The victim's son-in-law found him lying in a pool of blood behind the restaurant.The victim was still alive and was transported to a hospital in Birmingham where he died the next day.The State's evidence showed that the victim had been beaten about the head and face and that death was caused from gunshot wounds to the head.

Weldon Williams, in exchange for immunity from prosecution, testified essentially as set out below.

Around 3:30 or 4:00 p. m. on the date of the crime, Williams encountered the appellant at the home of the appellant's sister.He had known the appellant for the past ten years.Williams had been having an argument with his girl friend, and he asked the appellant to accompany him to her home.The two men left with Williams' sixteen-year-old brother Timothy.They stopped by a shoeshine parlor where the appellant procured what appeared to Williams to be a .38 caliber pistol from one Anthony Woods.They then carried Timothy Williams home and drove on to the home of Williams' girl friend.Upon arriving there Williams took the gun from the appellant, kicked in the door, returned the gun to the appellant, and then went upstairs.After a heated discussion with Williams' girl friend, he and the appellant left and drove to Williams' house where they again saw Anthony Woods.The appellant returned the gun to Woods at that time.After remaining there for about an hour, the appellant and Williams drove to the home of Anthony Woods' girl friend.It was just getting dark at that time.There they again encountered Woods, and the appellant borrowed the gun from Woods a second time.After staying there about forty-five minutes, Williams and the appellant left and headed toward Quintard Mall.Their route carried them south on Noble Street past the closed Old South Restaurant.It was there in a telephone booth adjacent to the restaurant that they saw the victim.

Williams testified that he and the appellant had no conversation about the victim or about the gun immediately prior to the crime.However, while stopped at a traffic light at the corner south of the restaurant, the appellant told Williams to turn the corner and park the car.Before Williams could do so, the appellant had exited the car and headed toward the telephone booth.Williams turned the car around, parked it got out, and started to follow the appellant.He saw the appellant with his arm around the victim's neck, pointing the gun at him, and backing him out of the telephone booth and around the corner of the restaurant.He then heard two shots fired, whereupon he turned and headed toward the car.Before he got there the appellant passed him in a trot.The appellant told him that he had to shoot because the victim resisted and also because the appellant did not want to be identified.

As the two moved toward their car, Williams noticed some traffic approaching them on Noble Street.The appellant told him to walk beyond their car until the traffic passed.Shortly thereafter they entered the car and continued to Quintard Mall.While in route the appellant gave Williams $40 which was half of the money he had taken from the victim.The appellant said he planned to use the victim's checkbook, and Williams replied that it would be best for the appellant to throw away all of the victim's personal effects.

Before reaching the mall they stopped at a convenience store to buy something to drink.While there Williams saw the appellant throw the victim's billfold and other personal effects behind the store.They then proceeded to Quintard Mall.While there they saw and talked to Jerry and Annette Jarrells.

Some time after leaving the mall, Williams and the appellant went to the home of Mary Heath where they again encountered Anthony Woods.The appellant returned the gun to Woods and told him that "he had just killed a guy with the gun."

Williams testified that he had no knowledge of the robbery before it happened.It was only after its completion that he was informed by the appellant of what transpired.On cross-examination Williams testified that he was not a participant in the commission of the crime, but based upon his knowledge of what happened he considered himself to be a part of it.

I

The appellant contends that the State did not adduce sufficient corroborative evidence of Williams' testimony to sustain a conviction.

Section 12-21-222,Code of Ala.1975, provides:

"A conviction of felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and such corroborative evidence, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof, is not sufficient."

Assuming, arguendo, that Williams was an accomplice, the issue then is whether the State introduced other evidence independent of Williams' testimony tending to connect the appellant with the commission of the offense.We will therefore summarize only such of the State's evidence which was introduced for the purpose of corroborating Williams' testimony.

Timothy Williams, brother of Weldon Williams, testified that he was with his brother and the appellant"some time near Christmas" in 1978.He did not recall how close to Christmas it was.At first he did not recall the day of the week, but later said it was on a Saturday.The prosecutor asked, "Could this have been the Saturday before Christmas?"The witness answered, "Yes."Other evidence in the case proved that the crime was committed on the Saturday before that particular Christmas, on December 23, 1978.

Timothy Williams stated that he was with his brother and the appellant on that date "around about dinner time, 12:00, something like that."The location was at "Joshua's Shoe Shop" in Anniston.On that occasion the witness observed Anthony Woods give the appellant a gun (of some undesignated description), and the appellant put it in his pocket.The witness' brother and the appellant then took the witness home and left him, and he did not see the appellant again.

Detective Sergeant Walter Williams, of the Anniston Police Department, testified that on March 19, 1979, he interviewed Weldon Williams concerning the instant offense.After that interview he, along with Lieutenant Gary Carroll, Weldon Williams and his attorney, went to the Quick Shop Convenience Store and discovered the various personal effects of the victim in a vacant lot behind the store.Sergeant Williams stated that the discovery of the items was accomplished through information provided by Williams.

Jerry Jarrells testified that he was with his wife at the Quintard Mall on the date in question and saw the appellant and Weldon Williams.Both were in the company of a third man whose identity was unknown to him.Jarrells stated that he and the appellant talked for approximately ten minutes.He later saw the appellant twice as the appellant walked through the mall; however, he could not recall the time at which that occurred other than it was near closing time.

Harold Turner testified that around 7:30 or 8:00 p. m. on December 23he and his family were traveling north on Noble Street when he saw two black males walking north of the traffic light at the corner immediately south of the Old South Restaurant.He also saw an automobile identical in all respects to his father's with the exception of a radio antenna mounted on the trunk.He identified a photograph of the victim's car as the one he saw.Turner could not identify the appellant or Williams as either of the two men he had seen on that occasion.

The State's evidence concerning ballistics was inconclusive.The bullet removed from the victim had characteristics of being fired from a .38 caliber weapon, but no further information was ascertainable concerning the bullet or the gun from which it was fired.Furthermore, no weapon was ever found during the investigation so as to supply a test weapon for a ballistics comparison.

The State's evidence concerning possible fingerprint identification of the appellant proved useless.None of the appellant's fingerprints were found on any of the victim's personal effects which had been recovered by the police.

The method traditionally used by the courts of this state in analyzing the evidence to determine if there has been sufficient corroboration of an accomplice's testimony has been to first set aside that testimony and then determine if the remaining evidence tends to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.Sorrell v. State, 249 Ala. 292, 31 So.2d 82(1947);Kimmons v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 343 So.2d 542(1977).The corroborative evidence of an accomplice's testimony need only to legitimately...