Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 14 October 1986
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 123
• Citation: 497 So.2d 595
• Parties: Lawrence WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 595

497 So.2d 595

Lawrence WILLIAMS v. STATE.

5 Div. 123.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Oct. 14, 1986.

Donald R. Cleveland, West Point, Ga., for appellant.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. General., and James B. Prude, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

McMILLAN, Judge.

The appellant, Lawrence Williams, was found guilty of receiving stolen property in the second degree in the Circuit Court of Chambers County and was sentenced to twenty-five years' imprisonment pursuant to the Alabama Habitual Offender Act. He filed a postjudgment motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, for new trial, which was denied.

The Lafayette Pawn Shop, co-owned by Linda Faye Pike Cagel, was apparently burglarized and several firearms were stolen, among them a .38 caliber Rossi pistol, which is the subject of this case. The pistol was recovered by the police from James Conley, the co-defendant named in the indictment. After interviewing Conley and Edward Wright, an arrest warrant for the appellant was issued. At trial, James Conley testified that the appellant came to his home, showed him the .38 Rossi pistol, and asked if he would take the pistol in pawn; whereupon Conley gave the appellant $4.00 for the gun and kept it until he gave it to the police. Conley further testified that the appellant led him to a location where a number of guns were wrapped in a blanket. They then approached Edward Wright and asked him for a ride to Auburn. Both Wright and Conley testified that they all drove to the location of the guns to retrieve them and then drove to Auburn to sell them. Upon their return from Auburn, the appellant paid Conley and Wright $5.00 each.

The appellant alleges that the State failed to sufficiently provide evidence to corroborate the testimony of James Conley, an accomplice, and to connect him with the .38 Rossi pistol which he was accused of having possessed. The State refutes this argument by challenging Conley's classification as an accomplice. The determination of whether a witness is an accomplice may be a question of law or fact. The classic test of this issue is: "Could the witness have been indicted and convicted of the offense in question, either as a principal or as an accessory?" Bates v. State, 461 So.2d 1, 3 (Ala.Cr.App.1983), aff'd, Ex parte Bates, 461 So.2d 5 (Ala.1984); Lewis v. State, 414 So.2d 135, 138 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, Ex parte Lewis, 414 So.2d 140 (Ala.1982); Jacks v. State, 364 So.2d 397 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 406 (Ala.1978). James Conley was indicted along with the appellant for this offense and had been convicted and sentenced in a separate trial. Furthermore, the trial judge instructed the jury as follows: "I charge you that as a matter of law James W. Conley is an accomplice in this case, and you cannot consider his testimony unless you find that there is other evidence which corroborates his testimony." No objections were raised thereto. "Where there is a doubt or dispute concerning the complicity of a witness and the testimony is susceptible to different inferences on that point, the question is for the jury." Ex parte Bell, 475 So.2d 609, 611-12 (Ala.1985), cert denied, Bell v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 1038, 106 S.Ct. 607, 88 L.Ed.2d 585 (1985). Further, a participant in a crime is not synonymous with an accomplice. Stevens v. State, 333 So.2d 852 (Ala.Cr.App.1975), cert. denied, 333 So.2d 855 (Ala.1976). " ' "If a witness admits his participation with the defendant in the crime but seeks by his testimony to explain it and to show his innocent intent, it has been held that a question is presented for the jury." 19 A.L.R.2d 1352, 1381 (1951).' " Ex parte Bell, supra, at 612, quoting Daniels v. State, 50 Ala.App. 88, 277 So.2d 364 (1973). However, James Conley entered a plea of guilty at his trial and there was no conflict in evidence concerning his complicity for the jury to determine.

Because James Conley was an accomplice, the question remains whether there was sufficient corroborative evidence to support his testimony. Aside from Conley's testimony, the State's case included testimony by Jimmy Pike, the co-owner of the pawn shop, Willie Washington, the investigating detective, and Edward Wright. Jimmy Pike testified that a number of firearms were missing and apparently had been stolen from the pawn shop; he listed those items. He presented no testimony to connect the appellant with the crime. Willie Washington testified that his investigation led him to James Conley, who had the .38 Rossi in his possession. He arrested Conley and, as a result of Conley's statement, spoke to Edward Wright and had a warrant issued for the arrest of the appellant. Edward Wright testified that he had no knowledge of the .38 Rossi that Conley had bought from the appellant and which is the subject of this indictment. Further, his testimony...