Robinson v. State, 1 Div. 219

Decision Date26 May 1981
Docket Number1 Div. 219
Citation399 So.2d 902
PartiesDale Lee ROBINSON v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Floyd C. Enfinger, of Lacey & Enfinger, Fairhope, for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Sandra M. Solowiej, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOWEN, Judge.

The defendant was indicted for burglary in the first degree and convicted of burglary in the second degree. Sentence was ten years' imprisonment.

I

The only semblance of a predicate laid by the State for introducing the in-custody statement of the defendant was on direct examination of Lieutenant Ellie McDowell, Jr. of the Bay Minette Police Department.

"Q. Did you warn Mr. Robinson of his rights?

"A. Yes, sir."

"Q. Did he indicate that he understood his constitutional rights?

"A. Yes, sir."

Defense counsel objected on the basis that "the proper predicate has not been laid." The trial judge made the following ruling.

"THE COURT: Would you (speaking to defense counsel) like to unless you want to explain some area that the witness has not touched on specifically I am going to take his declaration that he gave the defendant his warnings or his constitutional rights as provided in the constitution.

"MR. ENFINGER (Defense Counsel): We are going to except."

Because an in-custody statement by an accused is prima facie involuntary and inadmissible, the predicate laid for the admission of the statement is entirely inadequate. The assumption of the trial judge was unauthorized and has been rejected by the courts of this State. Thomas v. State, 370 So.2d 1066, 1069 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. quashed, 370 So.2d 1070 (Ala.1979); Swicegood v. State, 50 Ala.App. 105, 277 So.2d 380 (1973). The State must show the precise and specific warnings given the accused so that the trial judge may make a determination of the compliance or noncompliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Thomas, supra; Kelley v. State, 366 So.2d 1145, 1149, n. 3 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). The duty rests in the first instance on the trial court to determine whether or not a confession is voluntary. Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586, 179 So.2d 714 (1965); Kendrick v. State, 356 So.2d 1222 (Ala.Cr.App.1977); Reynolds v. State, 346 So.2d 979 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 986 (Ala.1977).

Although it is generally recognized that a specific objection to evidence offered is a condition precedent to appellate review, a general objection is sufficient to predicate error on appeal if the evidentiary matter to which it is addressed is patently inadmissible. Satterwhite v. State, 364 So.2d 359 (Ala.1978). Here the objection was specific enough to inform the trial court that a proper predicate for the admission of the confession had not been established. Everett v. State, 25 Ala.App. 432, 148 So. 171 (1933).

This Court has a statutory duty to consider "all questions apparent on the record" whether or not argued in brief. Sanders v. State, 278 Ala. 453, 179 So.2d 35 (1965); Norris v. State, 236 Ala. 281, 182 So. 69 (1938); Alabama Code 1975, Section 12-22-240.

II

The defendant contends that the trial court erred in charging the jury on the elements of burglary in the second degree when the undisputed evidence showed that he was guilty of the crime of burglary in the first degree or nothing at all. Because of our decision in part I of this opinion we need not decide this issue. However, we would refer to Richardson v. State, 390 So.2d 4 (Ala.1980), wherein the Supreme Court of Alabama held that a defendant indicted and convicted...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Ex parte Callahan
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 8 Febrero 1985
    ...here is somewhat similar. Although the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has applied Swicegood 's holding several times; Robinson v. State, 399 So.2d 902 (Ala.Crim.App.1978 [1981] ); Thomas v. State, 370 So.2d 1066 (Ala.Crim.App.1978); writ quashed, 370 So.2d 1070 (Ala.1979); Kelly [Kelley]......
  • McCall v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 30 Junio 1989
    ...evidence of the specific warnings given the defendant and no evidence that he understood and waived his rights. See Robinson v. State, 399 So.2d 902, 903 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). This issue has not been raised at trial or on appeal. The defendant contends that he was never given his ...
  • Chambers v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 28 Octubre 1986
    ...of the compliance or noncompliance with Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)." Robinson v. State, 399 So.2d 902, 903 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). While the State presented testimony that Coley and Johnson were given "their rights," no evidence was presented of the sp......
  • Ex parte Johnson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 15 Enero 1993
    ...Swicegood. See, also, Arthur v. State, 575 So.2d 1165 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), cert. denied, 575 So.2d 1191 (Ala.1991); Robinson v. State, 399 So.2d 902 (Ala.Crim.App.1981); and Thomas v. State, 370 So.2d 1066 (Ala.Crim.App.1978), writ quashed, 370 So.2d 1070 (Ala.1979). In each of those cases,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT