Title: Cason v. State

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

515 So. 2d 719 (1987)
Ex parte State of Alabama
(Re: Austin CASON
v.
STATE)
85-1289.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 16, 1987.
Rehearing Denied March 27, 1987.
*720 Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jane LeCroy Brannan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Arthur Parker, Birmingham, for respondent.
BEATTY, Justice.
This Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Criminal Appeals, 515 So. 2d 718 (1986), erred in holding that the defendant was entitled to the following jury instruction:
The Court of Criminal Appeals found that the refusal to give this charge was error, citing Kennedy v. State, 291 Ala. 62, 277 So. 2d 878 (1973), and Ashlock v. State, 367 So. 2d 560 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 367 So. 2d 562 (Ala.1979).
In Ashlock, the charge in question approved by the Court of Criminal Appeals was as follows:
367 So. 2d  at 560. (Emphasis added.)
291 Ala. at 65, 277 So. 2d  at 880. (Emphasis added.)
The use of the word "may" in each of these charges tends to allow the jury the ultimate decision on the credibility of a witness. Nevertheless, the instant charge may require the jury to consider the testimony of that witness as "impeached" once the felony conviction has been established, and thus the jury might believe that it should disregard his testimony completely. That conclusion, apparently, was the subject of the trial court's concern over the propriety of the charge.
In neither Ashlock nor Kennedy, on the other hand, did the language of the charge establish any conclusion for the jury on the question of the witness's credibility.
The credibility of a witness is a question for the jury. Waddle v. State, 473 So. 2d 580 (Ala.Crim.App.1985); Shelton v. State, 384 So. 2d 869 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 384 So. 2d 871 (Ala.1980). It is true that the evidence of a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may be considered as affecting credibility, Code of 1975, § 12-21-162; however, that evidence, and the other evidence, if any, must convince the jury that a witness previously convicted of such a crime is unworthy of belief in order to enable the jury to disregard that witness's evidence altogether.
*721 Indeed, in Murphy v. State, 474 So. 2d 771, 774 (Ala.Crim.App.1985), the following charge was approved:
We find that the requested charge was incorrect, and so the trial court did not err in refusing to give it. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed, and this cause is remanded to that court for an order consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
All the Justices concur.