Samuel v. State, 8 Div. 922
Decision Date | 22 May 1984 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 922 |
Parties | Terrance SAMUEL, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jerry R. Barksdale, Athens, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Owens, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Samuel was indicted and convicted of the murder of Jacob Carl Atnip, by shooting him with a pistol, in violation of § 13A-6-2, Code of Alabama 1975. He was consequently sentenced to life imprisonment. Because Samuel does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence, a recitation of the facts surrounding the offense is not necessary.
Samuel argues on appeal that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing a witness to testify that, on the night of Mr. Atnip's murder, Samuel was seen in possession of $158 or $178. He predicates such error on the general rule that "the fact of a person's possession of money, without some fairly reasonable indication that the money was acquired from the particular source of the now-charged crime, is not provable for the purpose of showing that the accused acquired it from such particular source." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 50.01 (3d ed. 1977).
The specific testimony in question is that of Mr. Bogue, the service station attendant who sold gas and cigarettes to Samuel on the evening of the murder. The alleged objectionable testimony is as follows:
....
We find that these general objections to Mr. Bogue's testimony did not preserve the issue now raised. A general objection which does not specify grounds preserves nothing for review unless the ground is so obvious that the court's failure to act constitutes prejudicial error, e.g., Lawrence v. State, 409 So.2d 987 (Ala.Crim.App.1982), or unless the objected to matter is clearly not proper for any purpose, e.g., McGinnis v. State, 382 So.2d 605 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 609 (Ala.1980). Neither exception to the rule that an objection must fairly and specifically point out the particular grounds on which error is alleged to have occurred is present in the instant case.
At the conclusion of the direct examination of Mr. Bogue, Samuel again objected to his testimony concerning Samuel's possession of $158 or $178, as follows:
"Your Honor, at this time, we want to move for a mistrial on the grounds that we have already--the motion in limine has already been granted about mentioning the money and we think it is highly prejudicial and has no probative value and we move for a mistrial."
The motion in limine referred to by Samuel's counsel as ground for the mistrial motion had been granted prior to the State's presentation of its case. Samuel's "MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING THE SUM OF $359.00 TAKEN FROM THE DEFENDANT UPON HIS ARREST" and the attached supporting briefs exclusively addressed Samuel's possession of $359 at the time of his arrest, except for a single statement at the conclusion of an attached brief: "Defendant also respectfully requests this Court that the Court instruct the State to instruct their witnesses not to mention the sum of money that Terry Samuel had with him or was found on him before and at the time of his arrest." Although this one sentence of the attached brief refers to Samuel's possession of money prior to his arrest, it is too vague, indefinite, and general to have called to the trial court's attention the particular evidence now challenged. A motion in limine should indicate with specificity the objectionable matter to enable the trial court to determine its admissibility under the issues delineated or under those issues which might develop; a broad-based motion which leaves the trial court to speculate about the object of the motion may be insufficient to preserve subsequent error which is not called to the trial court's attention. Banner Welders, Inc. v. Knighton, 425 So.2d 441, 446 (Ala.1982). "The motion should be used, if used at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parks v. State
...Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 426.01(8)(3d ed 1977). See also, Lewis v. State, 488 So.2d 1362 (Ala.Cr.App.1986); Samuel v. State, 455 So.2d 250 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). In the present case, Sergeant Knox's testimony was admissible, pursuant to our Supreme court's recent decision in Bowden......
-
Franklin v. State
...for any purpose, e.g., McGinnis v. State, 382 So.2d 605 (Ala.Crim. App.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 609 (Ala. 1980)." Samuel v. State, 455 So.2d 250, 252 (Ala. Crim.App.1984). See also Charles W. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence § 426.01(7) (5th ed. 1996) ("A general objection will suffice ......
-
Wiggins v. State
...as here, a substantial amount of other evidence exists to support the appellant's guilt, reversal is not warranted. See Samuel v. State, 455 So.2d 250 (Ala.Crim.App.1984). The accountant's testimony in this case verified the scheme used to accomplish the theft at issue. The appellant was sh......
-
Holmes v. State
...Alabama, U.S. , 104 S.Ct. 1716, 80 L.Ed.2d 188 (1984)." Dixon v. State, 476 So.2d 1236, 1240 (Ala.Cr.App.1985). See also Samuel v. State, 455 So.2d 250 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) (wherein a trial court's granting of a motion in limine did not provide adequate grounds for a motion for mistrial). Any ......