Opinion · Alabama Court Opinions
REAVES v. STATE, 47 Ala. App. 386 (1971)
Eugene REAVES, alias v. STATE., 255 So. 2d 55 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. 1971)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Alabama Court Opinions
- Jurisdiction
- Alabama
- Date
- 1971-11-23
- Topic
- general
REAVES v. STATE, 47 Ala. App. 386 (1971) 255 So.2d 55 Eugene REAVES, alias v. STATE. 6 Div. 252.Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. November 23, 1971.Petition Stricken December 30, 1971.See 256 So.2d 154.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed REAVES v. STATE, 47 Ala. App. 386 (1971). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
REAVES v. STATE,47 Ala. App. 386(1971)
255 So.2d 55
Eugene REAVES, alias v. STATE.
6 Div. 252.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
November 23, 1971.
Petition Stricken December 30, 1971.
See 256 So.2d 154.
A photograph to be relevant must show at least in part the locus in quo as part of the res gestae. Mitchell v. State,43 Ala. App. 427,191 So.2d 385; Birmingham Baptist Hospital v. Blackwell,221 Ala. 225,128 So. 389. Photograph taken after the offense is presumably irrelevant and immaterial, but presumption is only one of fact and may be overcome. Mitchell v. State,43 Ala. App. 427,191 So.2d 385; Hamilton v. State,43 Ala. App. 192,186 So.2d 108.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and John A. Yung, IV, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Photographs of the scene of a crime are admissible in evidence for purpose of getting a better understanding of the testimony of witnesses as to what occurred. Wilson v. State,256 Ala. 12,53 So.2d 559; Blue v. State,246 Ala. 73,19 So.2d 11.Page 387
A car hit a white female pedestrian in Powderly and did not stop. The State put a witness on the stand who testified that a few minutes after the time of the woman's being hit, the defendant drove into his filling station. Reaves told this witness that he had hit two Negroes in Powderly. He asked that the witness tell the police (if questioned) that Reaves had left his car that day to be worked on. The witness refused. There was other testimony establishing the corpus delicti.
The above delineated testimony tended to show, if believed to the required degree, a consciousness of guilt on the part of the defendant. That he mentioned Negroes rather than a white woman need not bind the State to that aspect of his admission. The jury was at liberty to infer that he was trying to hoodwink this witness as well as the police.
The photographer is not an indispensable foundation witness for the introduction of a photograph. True, a photograph is not self-proving. Mitchell v. State,43 Ala. App. 427,191 So.2d 385. However, any person familiar with the matter, or scene portrayed, can furnish the predicate for the picture. Alabama Trunk Luggage Co. v. Hauer,214 Ala. 473,108 So. 339; King v. State,43 Ala. App. 628,198 So.2d 308. Thus State's Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were properly admitted.
No objection was taken to the reception of State's Exhibit 4. No ineradicable prejudice arose from its reception.
We have considered the entire record under Code 1940, T. 15, § 389, and consider the judgment below is due to be
Affirmed.