Thomas v. State, 5 Div. 566
Decision Date | 24 November 1981 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 566 |
Citation | 409 So.2d 955 |
Parties | John A. THOMAS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thomas S. Melton of Melton, Gunter & Melton, Opelika, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and Bill North, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant was indicted and convicted for robbery in the first degree. Sentence was twenty-five years' imprisonment. The defendant argues that the trial judge erred in allowing the State to introduce, as part of its case in chief, evidence of a second robbery committed by the defendant.
The indictment charged the defendant with the robbery of Mary Pugh. In proving this charge, the State was allowed to introduce evidence that the defendant robbed Carol Wright shortly after the Pugh robbery. The evidence of the subsequent crime was admitted to prove the identity of the defendant under the rule that evidence of prior and subsequent crimes is admissible when such other crimes go to show the identity of the perpetrator of the now-charged offense. C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, Sections 69.01(8), 70.01(24) (c); Anno. 42 A.L.R.2d 854 (1955).
"(T)he identity exception to the general exclusionary rule ... contemplates the situation where the now-charged crime was committed in a novel and peculiar manner and the state is allowed to show that the accused has committed other similar offenses, in the same novel and peculiar manner, in order to show him the perpetrator of the now-charged crime." McElroy, Section 69.01(8).
The defendant argues, in substance, that the two robberies in this case were not committed in such a "novel and peculiar manner" as to warrant the invocation of the exception to the general rule excluding evidence of other crimes by the accused. True the two robberies were not committed in such a "novel or extraordinary means", as that phrase is ordinarily employed. However, the second robbery bears such a close resemblance to the charged robbery that its admission was proper. The two robberies were committed on the same night, within thirty minutes of each other and less than one mile apart. In both robberies the robber's appearance was similar, a pistol was used, the victims were both Auburn students, entrance into the apartment was gained the same way, the robber stated that he did not want any change the victims had, and, in both, he made the victims go into the bathroom and remain there until he had left. A significant factor was that in each robbery the robber had difficulty detaching the telephone cord from the wall outlet and the telephone. The total combination of circumstances involved in each robbery indicates that the robber was the same individual in each crime. The defendant had placed his "mark" or signature upon each offense. Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 708 (Ala.1977).
"The process of construing an inference of identity thus usually consists in adding together a number of circumstances, each of which by itself might be a feature of many objects, but all of which together make it more probable than they coexist in a single object only." 2 Wigmore, Evidence Section 411 (Chadbourn rev. 1979).
The issue we are presently confronted with was addressed recently by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
' " " (Citations omitted) State v. Davis, 389 So.2d 71 (La.1980)
The defendant also argues that the evidence of the second robbery committed by the defendant was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arthur v. State, 8 Div. 873
...accused's mark and the peculiarly distinctive modus operandi so that they may be said to be the work of the same person. Thomas v. State, 409 So.2d 955 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). The collateral and current offenses must, unless they bear such a close resemblance to each other that they can be assum......
-
Brewer v. State
...So.2d 623, 626 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), cert. quashed, 384 So.2d 627 (Ala.1980), or for "mark" or "signature" crimes, see Thomas v. State, 409 So.2d 955, 956 (Ala.Cr.App.1981). barn); Fuller v. State, 269 Ala. 312, 113 So.2d 153 (1959) (political-murder of candidate to prevent him from carrying o......
-
Tyson v. State
...who committed the now-charged crime is in issue.' C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 69.01(8) (3rd ed.1977); Thomas v. State, 409 So.2d 955 (Ala.Crim.App. 1981). There have been a plethora of cases in Alabama dealing with the identity exception, many of which have held that crimes wer......
-
Johnson v. State
...who committed the now-charged crime is in issue." C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 69.01(8) (3rd ed.1977); Thomas v. State, 409 So.2d 955 (Ala.Crim.App.1981). There have been a plethora of cases in Alabama dealing with the identity exception, many of which have held that crimes were......