Webb v. State

• Decision Date: 19 August 1958
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 484
• Parties: Floyd Earl WEBB v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

Page 701

105 So.2d 701

39 Ala.App. 591

Floyd Earl WEBB v. STATE.

6 Div. 484.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 19, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 10, 1958.

McDonald & Moon, Birmingham, for appellant.

John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Alvin T. Prestwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARWOOD, Presiding Judge.

After appealing from a judgment of guilty in the Juvenile Court of Jefferson County, this appellant was tried in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County on a Solicitor's complaint charging him with indecent exposure, an offense denounced by Section 326(1), Title 14, Code of Alabama 1940 (Pocket Part).

A verdict of guilty was returned by the jury, and judgment was entered accordingly.

The evidence presented by the State tended to show that this appellant exposed his private parts in the presence of two young girls. The offense took place in Avondale Park in the City of Birmingham on a Friday in the latter part of June, 1956.

It was also shown that the appellant had plead guilty to a charge of indecent exposure in 1949, in the Recorder's Court of the City of Birmingham.

The evidence presented by the State, if believed by the jury to the extent required by the rule, was ample in its tendencies to sustain the verdict and judgment of guilty. We see no necessity of detailing the evidence.

The defense was directed toward establishing an alibi. Such conflict as may have resulted in the evidence was solely within the province of the jury to resolve.

It was appellant's contention that he picked up his wife after work at 4:00 P.M., and on Fridays they always drove to their home, dressed to go out, prepared supper, and then went to a meeting of the Ladies League at the Salvation Army Citadel.

The court's ruling was invoked only a relatively few times in the trial below. We have examined these rulings and find them clearly free of error, and feel no purpose would be served in writing to most of them.

Counsel for appellant argues that the lower court erred in sustaining the State's objection to the following question propounded to Mrs. George F. Knight, a witness for the defense:

'Q. During June of this year '(1956)' do you have any judgment about how many nights they might have missed coming by your house, on the way to the meetings?'

Mrs. Knight was a stepdaughter of the appellant. Just previous to the above question she had testified that the appellant and his wife (her mother) went to the Ladies League meeting at the Salvation Army Citadel every Friday night, and that she particularly knew they went to the meetings every Friday night in June.

Counsel for appellant argues that the testimony sought to be elicited by the question was relevant to show the custom and habit of the appellant and his wife in going...