489 So. 2d 686 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1986
The Mobile County Grand Jury returned five indictments against appellant, Tommy Burks, charging him with one count of theft of property in the first degree and four counts of theft of property in the second degree, in violation of §
The issues raised by appellant have been fully addressed inUnited States v. Havens,
"[A] defendant's statements made in response to proper cross-examination reasonably suggested by the defendant's direct examination are subject to otherwise proper impeachment by the government, albeit by evidence that has been illegally obtained and that is inadmissible in the government's direct case, or otherwise, as substantive evidence of guilt."
As explained by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in UnitedStates v. One 1979 Porsche Coupe,
"[I]llegally obtained evidence may be used to impeach a statement made by a defendant on cross-examination when the statement being impeached is in response to a question that was reasonably suggested by the defendant's direct testimony."
In the case sub judice, Joyner testified that the missing money was detected by his accountant when certain deposits that were supposed to have been made by appellant, as store manager, were missing. Deposit slips were completed by the store manager and the originals were placed in a bank deposit bag with the deposit, and a copy was retained with the store records for the accountant. Each missing deposit occurred during a period when appellant was responsible for depositing the money in the bank.
When Joyner first confronted appellant with this information, appellant told Joyner that he had validated deposit slips that would prove his innocence. Appellant never produced any deposit slips and told Joyner he could not find them. Appellant testified on direct examination that he looked for records of the deposits in "boxes" at his home, but could not find anything.
On cross-examination, the State questioned appellant about the missing deposits. The following exchange occurred; note that State's Exhibit Eighteen is the deposit slip found as a result of the illegal search and seizure:
"Q. Okay. Did you ever take any of those deposits home?
"A. No.
"Q. Did you ever take any deposit slips home?
*688"A. Not to my knowledge. I may have taken old deposit slips home out of the records that I had in those boxes that I told you about. But besides that, no.
"Q. Let me show you State's Exhibit Eighteen. Did you fill that out?
"A. Yes.
"Q. Is that your signature?
"A. Looks like my signature.
"Q. Okay. Did you put that in the bag?
"A. I don't know what bag you're talking about.
"Q. Did you put that in the deposit bag?
"A. Yes, if I made it out.
"Q. Okay.
"A. I assume I put it in the deposit bag. But I don't remember that particular deposit slip.
"Q. And either you or somebody else was to put that along with the money and deposit it at First National Bank, weren't they?
"A. If it was the correct deposit slip and if it wasn't rewritten, as they have stated before. Some deposits were rewritten because they were improper.
"Q. You took this deposit slip home, didn't you?
"A. No, not to my knowledge.
"Q. Okay. You didn't deposit the money that was recorded on here, did you?
"A. I wouldn't know.
"Q. And you don't dispute that that's your signature on there, do you?
"A. It looks like my signature.
"Q. And that's the original. That's not a copy, is it?
"A. It's the original."
When the defense rested, the State called Sgt. Jack Bishop in rebuttal. Bishop identified State's Exhibit Eighteen as the deposit slip found in appellant's bedroom.
Havens requires that the subject of the cross-examination which elicits the statement to be impeached must have been "suggested to a reasonably competent cross-examiner by [the defendant's] direct testimony. . . ."
Based on the foregoing, this case is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All Judges concur.