Sales v. State
Decision Date | 19 July 1983 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 669 |
Citation | 435 So.2d 242 |
Parties | Charles SALES v. STATE of Alabama. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jerry Knight, Decatur, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Charles Sales was indicted for theft of property in the second degree in violation of § 13A-8-4, Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found the appellant "guilty as charged in the indictment." Following a habitual offender hearing, the trial judge set sentence at 30 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
On March 17, 1981, Kathy Gobble was employed at the T.G. & Y. Department Store in Hartselle, Alabama. While she was working the service desk on this date, at approximately 10:00 a.m., she saw a black male, whom she identified as the appellant, walking toward the front door carrying a television set. She told the appellant she needed to see his sales receipt and the appellant replied, "You don't need to see nothing."
At this time, Gobble paged "security" over the intercom. Kenneth Albert Farr, the co-manager of the store came to the front and asked her what was happening. Gobble replied that a "black male had just gone out the front door with a T.V. set." (R 13). Farr then looked out of the window and saw the appellant carrying a television in the store parking lot.
Farr rushed outside and told the appellant to stop. The appellant yelled obscenities at Farr, and then got into a light tan car with another man. Before the two drove off, Farr was able to obtain the license tag number of this car. Farr then went inside the store and telephoned police.
An inventory was conducted and a 13"' color television set was missing from stock.
The appellant contends the trial judge erred by allowing the admission of hearsay into evidence. The pertinent part of the record is set out as follows:
Defense counsel argues that Gobble's statement to Farr does not fall within the "res gestae" or "spontaneous exclamation" exception to the hearsay rule because it was made in response to Farr's question and cites Shiflett v. State, 38 Ala.App. 662, 93 So.2d 523 (1957), cert. denied, 265 Ala. 652, 93 So.2d 526 (1957) as authority. The Alabama Supreme Court dealt with this issue and distinguished the Shiflett case in Williams v. State, 291 Ala. 213, 279 So.2d 478 (1973). In this case, Justice Faulkner stated:
The trial judge in this case certainly had reason to conclude Gobble's statement was a part of the res gestae. The appellant had just left the store and her answer was an immediate response to Farr's question and certainly did not require any reflection as to what had happened. It was not an opinion but a statement of what had just occurred.
The trial judge did not err in admitting the statement at issue into evidence.
The appellant challenges Farr's ability to give an opinion as to the value of the television set.
Lankford v. State, 396 So.2d 1099 (Ala.Cr.App.1981).
Farr, as co-manager of the T.G. & Y. Store and the person who set up the television display, was competent to testify as to the value of the television and the jury's finding as to the value was supported by the evidence presented.
The appellant objects to a line of questioning the prosecution pursued during the examination of one of the State's witnesses.
The relevant portion of the record is as follows:
We agree with the trial judge that the prosecutor's questions were not prejudicial to the appellant. Therefore, the trial judge did not act improperly by refusing to grant a mistrial. Shadle v. State, 280...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donahoo v. State, 7 Div. 977
...in order to testify as to that article's value if he has had the opportunity to form a correct opinion as to its value. Sales v. State, 435 So.2d 242 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Lankford v. State, 396 So.2d 1099 (Ala.Crim.App.1981). Whether a witness has had an opportunity to form a correct opinio......
-
Brownlee v. State
...decided as to clearly convince this court that the guilty verdict returned against the accused was wrong and unjust. Sales v. State, 435 So.2d 242, 246 (Ala.Cr.App.1983); Williams v. State, 420 So.2d 819, 821 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Ward v. State, 356 So.2d 238, 240 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, ......
-
Freeman v. State
...216 Ala. 356, 361, 113 So. 67 (1927); Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 44, 95 So. 171 (1922).' (Emphasis added.)" Sales v. State, 435 So.2d 242, 245 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). Furthermore, the following occurred during the direct examination of the "[Defense Counsel]: What happened after that? "A: W......
-
Parrish v. State
...the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince this court that it was wrong and unjust." (Citations Omitted.) Sales v. State, 435 So.2d 242, 246 (Ala.Cr.App.1983). See also: Ward v. State, 356 So.2d 238 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 356 So.2d 242 (Ala.1978); Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 116......