Watts v. State, 3 Div. 101
Decision Date | 04 April 1972 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 101 |
Parties | Charles H. WATTS, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
David T. Hyde, Jr., Evergreen, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and J. Victor Price, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction for robbery. Punishment was fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of ten years.
According to the testimony, Mr. Arthur Wilson operated a service station in Castleberry, Alabama. On April 10, 1970, he was beaten and robbed of $750.00. The robber fled on foot and got into an automobile driven by defendant and the two men drove away.
The defendant admitted he drove the car and stopped some distance from the victim's place of business; that his brother told him he had to 'go see a man;' that he returned running and said, 'let's go.' He denied he knew his brother intended to commit robbery or that he had robbed anyone while he was gone.
A statement given by defendant to law enforcement officers was introduced in evidence, over defendant's objection that the proper predicate had not been laid. In the statement defendant said when he stopped the car he kept the motor running. His brother left carrying a 'night stick ' he took from defendant's car and returned in about ten minutes, running, and said 'let's go.' Defendant and his brother then drove to defendant's home where the brother gave him $276.00 in cash.
Proper pre- and Miranda predicates were laid for the admission of the statement. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The argument in brief is that the statement should not have been admitted because the record fails to show that defendant was advised that he had a right to stop answering questions at any time.
In Green v. State, 45 Ala.App. 549, 233 So.2d 243, this court, per Cates J., said:
'The Miranda opinion itself does not place explanation of this subsequent right to cease answering questions as being an integral part of the required initial warnings requisite to a valid waiver.'
During the cross examination of Officer Taylor the following occurred:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flannagin v. State
...384 U.S. at 473--474, 86 S.Ct. at 1627. The Court of Criminal Appeals had previously reached this conclusion in Watts v. State, 48 Ala.App. 143, 262 So.2d 630. There is no reversible error in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals. Affirmed. MERRILL, COLEMAN, HARWOOD, BLOODWORTH, MADD......
-
State v. Cannon, 19642
...such: State v. Jones, 293 Minn. 443, 196 N.W.2d 606 (1972); Flannagin v. State, 289 Ala. 177, 266 So.2d 643 (1972); Watts v. State, 48 Ala.App. 143, 262 So.2d 630 (1972), and specifically point with approval to the reasoning of the Flannagin case. See also 3 Wigmore, Evidence, § 826 (Chadbo......
-
Crowe v. State
...such advice is helpful to the State's case, we find no error in this aspect of the Miranda warning in the instant case. Watts v. State, 48 Ala.App. 143, 262 So.2d 630. As distinguished from Marcus v. State, 50 Ala.App. 526, 280 So.2d 786, cert. denied 291 Ala. 350, 280 So.2d 793, we find in......