Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 759 |
| Citation | 350 So.2d 707 |
| Parties | Thomas Niza WILLIAMS, alias v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ian F. Gaston, Mobile, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant-defendant, an indigent at nisi prius and here was convicted of robbery and sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. He entered a plea of not guilty and did not take the witness stand except on a voir dire outside the presence of the jury on a motion to suppress evidence. The motion was denied.
His plea of not guilty cast a burden on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the material allegations of the indictment charging the offense. Such proof embraced the identity of defendant as the one who committed the crime.
Defendant here asserts only one contention of error. He contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence the testimony of the victim that defendant came back a week later, robbed her again and incidentally made some comment about the prior robbery. (See Williams v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 338 So.2d 522.)
As a general rule other offenses, prior or subsequent, are not admissible in evidence to establish crime, however, there are exceptions. One exception is to establish identity of defendant. Murphy v. State, 52 Ala.App. 490, 294 So.2d 457(2)(3); Weatherspoon v. State, 36 Ala.App. 392, 56 So.2d 793(1).
But defendant contends that identity was not an issue in this case. we cannot agree with this contention. When defendant entered his plea of not guilty, his identity became a very important issue which was not mitigated or softened due to defendant's failure to take the stand before the jury and deny his guilt or identity; nor because he failed to offer any evidence before the jury denying his confession as related by a police officer.
The State had a lawful right to establish the identity of defendant as the robbery culprit by competent evidence, even though redundant. The fact that she saw him a week later, when he again robbed her, was admissible even though she was positive of the first identification. This second observation of defendant tended to strengthen the first identification and tended to impress the jury that she was not mistaken. The fact that the second observation of defendant was under circumstances involving a second offense of robbery against the same victim did not preclude...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Noriega
...days earlier admitted as probative of identity and showing common scheme or plan directed against the same people); Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 707 (Ala.Cr.App., 1977) (evidence of subsequent robbery of same victim admissible as evidence of identity); to the same effect State v. Jones, 26 ......
-
Player v. State
...after the defendant made Ms. McConnell open the cash register he told her, "I want it all, I want it all this time." In Williams v. State, 350 So.2d 708 (Ala.1977), it was held that, where a defendant offered no other defense beyond his plea of not guilty and the witness made a positive ide......
-
Williams v. State
...witness stand only once, and this was on a motion to suppress evidence without the presence of the jury. The Court of Criminal Appeals, 350 So.2d 707, affirmed the conviction, holding that Williams' not guilty plea placed his identity in issue so as to justify admission of the victim's test......