Thomas v. State, 6 Div. 66
Decision Date | 14 August 1984 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 66 |
Citation | 455 So.2d 278 |
Parties | George Herman THOMAS, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Sheldon Perhacs, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Glenn L. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
George Herman Thomas, Jr. was indicted for the murder of one Lorre Beth Hutchinson by "striking her on or about her face or head with his hands and feet, thereby knocking her prostrate in an inside lane of a heavily traveled public thoroughfare, ... and thereafter leaving her lying in said thoroughfare where she was struck and killed by an automobile...", in violation of § 13A-6-2, Code of Alabama 1975. The jury found the appellant "guilty of murder," and, after a sentencing hearing, the trial judge sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment.
The appellant does not challenge the weight and sufficiency of the evidence against him, therefore, only a succinct statement of the facts is necessary.
The record reveals that on July 25, 1981, the appellant, Lorre Beth Hutchinson, Maurice Coleman, and Kathy Titton were together, playing cards and drinking. This group had gone to several night clubs where they continued to drink, before returning to the appellant's apartment. The appellant and Lorre Beth Hutchinson had an argument, after which the appellant left his apartment and began drinking whiskey out of a bottle.
The record further reveals that at approximately 2:00 a.m. on the morning of July 26, 1981, the appellant was observed standing over a woman in the doorway of an apartment, and he was kicking her about the head, face and shoulders. The appellant then dragged this woman into the middle of the street and walked back towards the apartment. The appellant was observed motioning for an automobile to "come on and run over her." (R.87) Subsequently, a speeding car came down the street and hit the woman lying in the street. The appellant was arrested at the scene shortly thereafter.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing Dr. Bruce Alexander, a pathologist, to express his opinion as to the cause of the injuries of the deceased. The appellant specifically argues that the question asked by the prosecutor was a hypothetical question, based on facts not in evidence, and that the form of the question was not proper.
The record reveals the basis for the appellant's argument on this point. The following portion of the record places the complained of testimony within its proper context:
Before Dr. Alexander testified as to his opinion of the manner or means by which the deceased's injuries could have been inflicted, he testified extensively about the nature of such injuries and to the cause of death.
The trial court committed no error in allowing the witness to answer the question. The qualifications of Dr. Alexander as an expert witness were extensive. He was certainly qualified to describe the nature and extent of the injuries found on the deceased's body and to state his opinion as to the manner or means by which they could have been inflicted. Thomas v. State, 249 Ala. 358, 31 So.2d 71 (1947); White v. State, 294 Ala. 265, 314 So.2d 857 (1975); Tuck v. State, 384 So.2d 1240 (Ala.Crim.App.1980); Bell v. State, 435 So.2d 772 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). Further, such testimony was not reversible error because it concerned an undisputed and uncontested matter--that the victim was run over by an automobile. The admission of evidence is harmless if that evidence concerns an undisputed matter. Rogers v. State, 53 Ala.App. 573, 302 So.2d 547 (1974); Yelton v. State, 294 Ala. 340, 317 So.2d 331 (1974); Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 1164 (Ala.Crim.App.), writ quashed, 378 So.2d 1173 (Ala.1979).
Finally, opinion testimony, offered by an expert witness, may be based upon facts within his knowledge, or he may give an opinion based upon a hypothetical question, based upon facts already in evidence, or evidence to be subsequently admitted. C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 130.01 (3rd Ed.1977), and cases cited...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Webb v. State
...is entitled at all times to have access to the trial court for such additional instructions as they may require." Thomas v. State, 455 So.2d 278, 281 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). This court reviews only the rulings of the trial court in the context of the record. In the absence of any evidence of jur......
-
Murry v. State
...Moreover, such a practice does not give added weight or place undue emphasis on that portion of the oral charge." Thomas v. State, 455 So.2d 278, 281 (Ala.Cr.App.1984) (citations omitted). "It is assumed that the jury will consider the previously given instructions along with those given in......
-
Perkins v. State
...question, which is based upon facts already in evidence or facts to be subsequently admitted into evidence. Thomas v. State, 455 So.2d 278, 281 (Ala.Cr.App.1984), citing C. Gamble, McElroy's Alabama Evidence, § 130.01 (3d ed. 1977), and cases cited therein. "Moreover, a hypothetical questio......
-
Gordon v. State
...specifically asked by jurors, " 'it is the recommended practice for the trial court to remain within such area.' " Thomas v. State, 455 So.2d 278, 281 (Ala.Cr.App.1984). It is clear from the reinstruction that the trial court remained within the area requested by the jury. No error occurred......