Court Opinion

ID: 9527435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:30:34.290653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:47.450665
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
PRICE, Presiding Judge.
We extend our original opinion by complying with the following quoted requests of appellant’s attorney:
“1. By a statement that all of the evidence adduced in the trial court bearing upon proof of the corpus delicti is summarized in this Honorable Court’s opinion affirming the judgment of conviction.”
The evidence as to the corpus delicti is fully and substantially summarized in the opinion.
“2. By briefly describing the photographs, as to the admission of which into evidence error was assigned by Appellant on this appeal.”
The photographs are attached to the transcript and are available for the consideration of the Supreme Court.
The photographer testified State’s Exhibit 1 shows the den portion of the Whitt home. Exhibit 2 is “a photograph inside of the home pointing toward the rear door and also showing the doorway leading into the den.” Exhibit 5 “is an outside view of the rear door. It also shows some small marks just below the door knob * * Exhibit 6 is “a photograph of the flower bed outside the back patio.” Exhibit 7 is “a close-up photograph of the rear door partially open.” Exhibit 13 “shows a portion of the driveway where it meets the garage door. * * * The photograph also contains a pair of white gloves laying at the base of the garage door.” Exhibit 15 shows “just beyond the paved driveway at the rear of the home. * * * I photographed the screwdriver in this position in the yard, sir, a standing position.” Exhibit 14 is “another view of the back yard, showing an additional screwdriver found at the scene.” State’s Exhibit 16 shows “a small flash light found in the driveway by itself. * * * Due to the size of the flash light I put a six inch ruler beside it when I photographed it.” Exhibit 3 shows “the base of the door between the den going out to the small area there where you go out through the back door. I don’t know what room you call this, whether it is a utility room or what. But it is the door leading between those two rooms. It has a bullet hole in the base of the woodwork.”
“3. By a statement that there was no extrinsic evidence adduced in the trial court tending to establish that the photographs portrayed the condition of the Whitt premises, and the objects shown in the photographs, as they appeared immediately after the alleged crime — only that they were correct portrayals at the time the photographs were made.”
The evidence was that the offense was committed shortly after 9:00 o’clock. The photographer testified he arrived at the scene at 9:40 in response to a call from Detective Stephens and took the pictures as soon as he arrived. His testimony was sufficient to show that the photographs correctly depicted and portrayed the scene and the objects as they appeared immediately after the alleged crime. In Pinkerton v. State, 30 Ala.App. 103, 2 So.2d 323, relied on by appellant, the photographs were taken thirty days after the commission of the crime.
“4. By expressly ruling upon Appellant’s Assignments of Error No. 6 and No. 7, relating to restriction by the trial court of Appellant’s cross-examination of the witness Buford Whitt.”
We quote from the record that portion of the testimony which includes the objections of the district attorney to two questions propounded to the witness, Whitt, and the court’s rulings sustaining the objections:
“Q Did you make an inspection as to that area that you are testifying about immediately before you went to bed?
“A When I came home off of my last call those lights were on. I parked my car *292'in this side of the garage, right here. I walked back down this drive, closed these two 7-foot gates myself, came back up this drive, walked back through this garage door, closed the garage door, went in this door in the utility room, when through the utility room, and then back to my bedroom.
“Q You were getting ready for bed, you weren’t making any inspection of the premises, trying to find out what might be lying out there on the driveway or on the ground?
“MR. THOMAS: We object to that as being argumentative.
“THE COURT: Sustained.
“MR. MANNING: We except.
“Q It is true that you did not make any inspection of that area, is it not, Doctor? I am talking about before the incident happened.
“A I would have noticed those gloves, had they been there.
“MR. MANNING: Now, we object, Your Honor, to the unresponsive answer.
“THE COURT j Answer his question, Dr. Whitt. Did you or did you not make an inspection of the area?
“A Well, I would say that I did inspect that drive as I came back up through there, because there was nothing on that concrete.
“Q You noticed nothing?
“A I know there was nothing on it, except a little pan about that big that the dogs drank out of.
“Q Dr. Whitt, you didn’t walk along there and look at the driveway, did you?
“MR. THOMAS: We object.
“THE COURT: Sustained.
“MR. MANNING: We except. It’s proper cross examination.”
The questions were argumentative. The objections were properly sustained. The witness answered the questions by stating that he did inspect the driveway and noticed nothing on it. Defendant’s right of cross examination was not restricted.
Opinion extended.
Application overruled.