Thomas v. State, 6 Div. 145
| Decision Date | 27 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 145 |
| Parties | Rickey Lenn THOMAS, alias v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Jones, Propst & Topazi, Birmingham, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and J. Victor Price, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
A jury convicted defendant of robbery as charged in an indictment and fixed his punishment at ten years imprisonment in the penitentiary. Following allocution, the trial court pronounced sentence in accordance with the verdict and entered judgment from which his appeal is taken.
The alleged victim of the offense was Mrs. Alma Jo Jenkins who at the time was in her beauty shop at 4104 Seventh Avenue, in Wylam, Jefferson County. The time was about 6:10 P.M., April 12, 1968, when Mrs. Jenkins was serving her last customer.
The offender made known to these two women his purpose to rob them and directed where they should stand in the room; he also warned them not to scream, and if they observed this command, no one would get hurt. As he was about to depart, after obtaining about $165.00 from Mrs. Jenkins, he imprisoned both victims in a restroom by placing a chair against the door. After the offender left, Mrs. Jenkins and her customer managed to escape and called the police.
The police responded to the call, made an investigation, and obtained a description of the robber. On April 16, 1968, Mrs. Jenkins recognized the defendant as the person who had robbed her. He was across the street, near the beauty shop, in an automobile which had become immobilized from mechanical trouble. Mrs. Jenkins followed a towing car which took the immobilized automobile and defendant to a nearby filling station whereto the police came in response to a call from her. The defendant was there arrested and later identified by Mrs. Jenkins in a lineup with several other black persons.
Appellant here contends for a reversal based on two points, (1) that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the conduct of a prospective woman juror on her qualifying examination by the trial court and concluded on voir dire by appellant, and (2) the refusal of the trial court to admit in evidence over objection of the State two checks which defendant cashed at a local bank. These checks were offered in support of an alibi upon which defendant relied to establish his plea of not guilty.
Anent contention one. The record fails to set out the qualifying questions propounded by the trial court and the answers of the juror thereo. On defendant's voir dire examination, Mrs. Brodie, the juror, responded thereto that Mrs. Jenkins was her beauty operator. Thereupon the prosecuting attorney asked Mrs. Brodie if she had heard any of the facts of the case discussed. Mrs. Brodie replied:
The court thereupon excused Mrs. Brodie from serving on the case. Counsel for defendant said he had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
...we are unable to evaluate any statements by this potential juror that may have been contained therein. See Thomas v. State, 49 Ala.App. 537, 539, 274 So.2d 93, 95 (1973) (“The record is silent as to the court's qualifying questions to the juror and her answers thereto. We are bound by the r......
-
Lucy v. State
...394 (1959); Walker v. State, 223 Ala. 294, 135 So. 438 (1931); Boyd v. State, 50 Ala.App. 394, 279 So.2d 565 (1973); Thomas v. State, 49 Ala.App. 537, 274 So.2d 93 (1973); Hayes v. State, 33 Ala.App. 364, 33 So.2d 744 In Thomas, supra, upon appeal, the appellant therein contended that the t......
-
Turk v. State, 6 Div. 1
...290 So.2d 668, writ denied, 292 Ala. 758, 290 So.2d 672 (1973); Boyd v. State, 50 Ala.App. 394, 279 So.2d 565 (1973); Thomas v. State, 49 Ala.App. 537, 274 So.2d 93 (1973); Magouirk v. State, 49 Ala.App. 420, 272 So.2d 625 (1973); Lucy v. State, 340 So.2d 840 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 34......
-
McNair v. State
...to the appellant. For this reason, the trial court's denial of the request for a mistrial was proper. Thomas v. State, 49 Ala.App. 537, 539, 274 So.2d 93, 95 (1973)." Here, it cannot be argued that the appellant was prejudiced or that the jury was improperly influenced by the comment that t......