South v. City of Mountain Brook
Decision Date | 21 June 1996 |
Docket Number | CR-94-2250 |
Parties | Jon Kelly SOUTH v. CITY OF MOUNTAIN BROOK. Jon Kelly SOUTH v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
William Bradford, Birmingham, for Appellant.
Jon Kelly South, pro se.
Carlos E. Heaps, Birmingham, Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Stephen Dodd, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
The appellant, Jon Kelly South, appeals his convictions for harassing communications made to Mary Winfrey, a violation of § 13A-11-8, Code of Alabama 1975; assault in the third degree of Mary Thompson, a violation of § 13A-6-22; and burglary in the first degree of Mary Thompson's residence, a violation of § 13A-7-5. The appellant appealed his convictions for harassing communications and assault from municipal court for the City of Mountain Brook to the Circuit Court for Jefferson County for a trial de novo. The trial court consolidated the appellant's appeal with the appellant's case based on a charge of burglary in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County. He was sentenced to 10 years in the state penitentiary. That sentence was split, and he was ordered to serve one year in prison, to be followed by two years' of probation for his burglary conviction. The trial court also sentenced the appellant to six months' hard labor in the City of Mountain Brook for his convictions for harassing communications and assault. Those sentences were to run concurrently with his sentence for burglary.
The state's evidence tended to show that on December 30, 1992, Mary Thompson, the appellant's estranged wife, 1 was at her mother's, Mary Winfrey's, house. Mary Winfrey testified that the appellant telephoned her residence numerous times that day and asked to speak with Thompson. Winfrey stated that the telephone calls from the appellant started before 7:00 a.m. and continued all day. She testified that the appellant called between 20 to 30 times and that she telephoned the police to report his calls. Officer Michael Glass, a Mountain Brook police officer, arrived at Winfrey's house at approximately 5:25 p.m. He testified that after he arrived the appellant telephoned several times. Officer Glass testified that he listened to one of the calls and that he spoke with the appellant. He identified himself to the appellant and advised him not to call back. Glass further testified that the appellant verbally abused Winfrey, calling her a "m_____f_____", and a "bitch."
Mary Thompson testified that she was married to the appellant for one year and two months. She testified that on May 14, 1993, the appellant, from whom she was separated, entered her house at 6 Montevallo Terrace. Thompson stated that the appellant hit her with his fist several times. She said that she suffered a swollen and black eye as a result of the beating, but she did not go to the hospital for treatment. Officer James Minton, a Mountain Brook police officer testified that he responded to a call from 6 Montevallo Terrace on May 14, 1993. He observed that Thompson's face was bruised and was black and blue.
Mary Thompson further testified that in January 1994, following her divorce from the appellant, she moved into a townhouse on Caldwell Avenue. She stated that on the night of March 30 the appellant "banged" on her door for 15 minutes, while he yelled "let me in, let me in." The appellant broke down Thompson's front door and ran upstairs to Thompson's bedroom, where Thompson was hiding. Thompson testified that the appellant hit her with his fist and that she fell back on the bed. Bernard Gates, a friend of Thompson's, testified that he was at Thompson's townhouse on March 30. He stated that he was in the bathroom when the appellant attacked Thompson. Gates testified that he heard the appellant hit Thompson and that he ran into the bedroom. The appellant left when he saw Gates.
The appellant contends that his conviction for harassing communications violated his constitutional right to free speech. Specifically, he asserts that his communications with Mary Winfrey did not constitute "fighting words" and, therefore, would not constitute harassing communications under § 13A-11-8.
Alabama Code 1975, § 13A-11-8, provides:
In B.E.S. v. State, 629 So.2d 761 (Ala.Cr.App.1993), this court addressed the scope of and the constitutionality of § 13A-11-8(a)(1)b, as it applies to a conviction for harassment, when it stated:
It is clear that B.E.S. applies to those fact situations that involve face-to-face harassment that might provoke "swift physical retaliation." (Cf. Conkle v. State, 677 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Cr.App.1995)).
The appellant specifically questions the constitutionality of § 13A-11-8(b) and contends that the "fighting words" standard should apply to harassing communications as well as harassment. This is an issue of first impression in Alabama and this is, therefore, our first opportunity to consider whether "fighting words" are required to sustain a conviction under § 13A-11-8(b). The State of Kentucky addressed this issue in Yates v. Commonwealth, 753 S.W.2d 874 (Ky.App.1988). The Court of Appeals of Kentucky stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Montgomery v. Zgouvas
...this Court has upheld the constitutionality of § 13A-11-8(b) and § 13A-11-8(a)(1)b, Ala. Code 1975. In South v. City of Mountain Brook, 688 So.2d 292 (Ala.Crim.App.1996), the defendant was convicted of making harassing communications. The evidence showed that South telephoned his estranged ......
-
Chapman v. State
...an indictment is not the title, but the occupancy or possession at the time the offense was committed.” ’ ” South v. City of Mountain Brook, 688 So.2d 292, 296 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). See also § 13A–7–1(2), Ala.Code 1975. Consequently, Chapman's argument that the indictment was fatal because i......
-
Al Maqablh v. Heinz
...to Yates in determining that their similar state statues are constitutional and not void for vagueness. See South v. City of Mountain Brook, 688 So. 2d 292,296 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) (specifically adopting the reasoning in Yates); see also City of Montgomery v. Zgouvas, 953 So. 2d 434, 443 ......
-
Riggs v. Butler
... ... State , ... 64 So.3d 1120, 1126 (Ala.Crim.App.2009) (quoting South v ... City of Mountain Brook , 688 So.2d 292, 296 ... ...
-
Ask not for whom the bell tolls - ask why a look at the harassing telephone call statutes.
...such a call had to be intentionally and knowingly made for the purpose of annoying or alarming the recipient. Likewise, in South u State, 688 So. 2d 292 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996), the court rejected a challenge based on the argument that the language contained in the calls had to be "fighting ......