Reeves v. State, 8 Div. 761
Citation | 456 So.2d 1156 |
Decision Date | 14 August 1984 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 761 |
Parties | John Rickey REEVES v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
John Edmond Mays, Decatur, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
John Rickey Reeves was indicted for the first degree kidnapping of one Clara Blackwell, in violation of § 13A-6-43, Code of Alabama 1975. The appellant plead "not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity" to the charge, and trial was commenced in the cause. The jury found the appellant "guilty as charged in the indictment," and, after a sentencing hearing, the trial court fixed punishment at life imprisonment without benefit of parole, pursuant to the Alabama Habitual Felony Offender Statute.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not raised on appeal, therefore, we will limit our discussion of the facts to those which are necessary for a discussion of the issues raised as error.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to testimony of one Denise Blackwell. During the course of the trial, Miss Blackwell, daughter of the victim, testified to a conversation she heard between the victim and the appellant. The appellant contends that such testimony was hearsay and, therefore, not admissible.
A (Witness pointing.)
The record reveals that the victim, Clara Blackwell, was present in court, testified as a witness against the appellant in the trial, and was subject to cross-examination by appellant's counsel. The record further reveals that the appellant was present at the time the statements were made, in fact, he was a party to the conversation. Hearsay does not include statements of witnesses in the present trial subject to cross-examination by the party against whom the statements are offered. Gray v. State, 364 So.2d 694 (Ala.Crim.App.1978); Hammock v. State, 401 So.2d 292 (Ala.Crim.App.1981); C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 242.01(1) (3rd Ed.1977). In the present case, such testimony was not hearsay and was admissible against the appellant.
Moreover, these statements were incident to what was done and shed light on the main facts of the case. Therefore, this testimony was further admissible as part of the res gestae of the offense. Allen v. State, 382 So.2d 1147 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 1158 (Ala.1980); Williams v. State, 389 So.2d 151 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 389 So.2d 154 (Ala.1980); Bass v. State, 375 So.2d 540 (Ala.Crim.App.1979).
The appellant contends that the trial court erred to reversal by allowing the State to elicit testimony from two physicians that, when the appellant was hospitalized in August of 1981, he was due to stand trial for an offense, and when his case was continued he checked himself out of the hospital. The appellant argues that such evidence of prior crimes was inadmissible, and as a result he should be granted a new trial.
The appellant first argues that Dr. Duncan's testimony was inadmissible. Appellant objected to this testimony at trial, assigning no grounds for the objection. On appeal, he argues that such testimony was of a prior crime of the defendant and, thus, inadmissible.
It should be noted initially that an objection without specifying a single ground is not sufficient to place the trial court in error for overruling such objection. Wyrick v. State, 409 So.2d 969 (Ala.Crim.App.1981); Smoot v. State, 381 So.2d 668 (Ala.Crim.App.1980); Gibbs v. State, 342 So.2d 448 (Ala.Crim.App.1977); Langford v. State, 54 Ala.App. 659, 312 So.2d 65 (1975).
Moreover, where a question is answered before an objection is made, the objection comes too late and the court's ruling will not be declared in error without a motion to exclude and an adverse ruling. Hooper v. State, 448 So.2d 501 (Ala.Crim.App.1984); Thomas v. State, 440 So.2d 1216 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Hobbs v. State, 401 So.2d 276 (Ala.Crim.App.1981).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Townes v. State
...did not say that he wanted a death sentence. Accordingly, any error in the State's question was harmless. See Reeves v. State, 456 So.2d 1156, 1161 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) (holding that any error in a question seeking to solicit improper information is harmless when the question receives "a neg......
-
Perkins v. State
...Evidence, § 265.01(1) at 1281 (5th ed. 1996). (Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.)" 726 So.2d at 300. See also Reeves v. State, 456 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) (testimony by daughter of kidnapping victim about conversation between victim and defendant fell within the res gestae excep......
-
Carroll v. State
...28, 45, 38 So. 919, 925 (1905). "A negative answer to an improper question does not constitute reversible error." Reeves v. State, 456 So.2d 1156, 1161 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). XVI. We also reject the appellant's argument that the prosecutor's arguments in the sentence phase of the trial were imp......
-
McLemore v. State
...in the present trial subject to cross-examination by the party against whom the statements are offered," ' [see Reeves v. State, 456 So.2d 1156, 1159 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) and cases cited therein,] then it has done so on authority other than orthodox, common-law evidentiary principles or the Fe......