Evans v. State
82 So. 3d 766
Ala. Crim. App.2011Background
- Evans was convicted of four counts of first-degree robbery and sentenced as a habitual offender to life without parole for each conviction.
- Four indictments (Feb 6, 2009) charged four victims—Joshawan Brown, Larry Hunter, Michael Rutledge, and Frank Bowden—with robberies arising from the same set of facts; cases were consolidated for trial (May 10, 2010).
- Rutledge, owner of A Cut Beyond barbershop, testified Evans entered with a shorter man carrying a blue gym bag, Evans produced a gun, and a struggle ensued; Evans fled, dropping his cap and gun; police pursued and arrested Evans and the other man.
- Hunter testified that two men, including a taller man with a gun, entered the shop; a struggle occurred; two gunshots were heard; one man was shot, and the car they fled in was described as a little Chevy; the blue bag was seen outside the car.
- Officer Myers testified Evans was in a tan Chevrolet fleeing the scene; VIN and license plate did not match registered owner; Evans was shot and admitted to the hospital; DNA from blood at the barbershop matched Evans.
- Evans moved for acquittal at close of State’s case; motion denied; verdicts returned May 12, 2010; posttrial, Evans filed a pro se motion for new trial on June 21, 2010; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence suffices for four counts of first-degree robbery | Evans argues the State failed to prove intent to deprive. | Evans contends there was no robbery intent proven; only intimidation without taking. | The evidence is legally sufficient to support each robbery conviction. |
| Confrontation rights regarding affidavits from Brown and Bowden | Evans claims denial of cross-examination violated Sixth Amendment by affidavits not testified. | State argues Crawford applies only to testimonial in-court/out-of-court statements actually introduced at trial; affidavits were not admitted. | Claim is waived and not reviewable; affidavits were not presented to the jury; Confrontation Clause not violated. |
| Preservation and appellate review of the cross-examination issue | Issue preserved for appellate review. | Issue was not properly raised below and is waived; Rule 28(a)(10) not satisfied. | Issue is waived; not properly before this Court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Verzone, 868 So.2d 399 (Ala. 2003) (robbery need not include actual taking to convict)
- Craig v. State, 893 So.2d 1250 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004) (proof of taking not required for robbery)
- Ingram v. State, 878 So.2d 1208 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003) (intent inferred from facts and circumstances)
- Ward v. State, 557 So.2d 848 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990) (circumstantial evidence viewed with care)
- McCord v. State, 501 So.2d 520 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986) (intent rarely proven directly; inferred from evidence)
- Ex parte Coulliette, 857 So.2d 793 (Ala. 2003) (review is limited to properly preserved issues)
- Newsome v. State, 570 So.2d 703 (Ala.Crim.App. 1989) (appellate review requires properly preserved issues)
- Patterson v. State, 538 So.2d 37 (Ala.Crim.App. 1987) (avoid conviction based on mere suspicion or guesswork)