Johnson v. StateJohnson v. State
Donald D. Doerr, Bay Minette, for Appellant.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Beth Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
TAYLOR, Presiding Judge.
The appellant, Bernard Johnson, was convicted of escape in the third degree, a violation of
The state‘s evidence tended to show that on January 24, 1993, the appellant was purportedly arrested by Deputy Nicky Rider and other officers with the Baldwin County
The issue in this case is whether the appellant was in lawful custody when his escape occurred. Lawful custody is an element of the offense of escape, Barnett v. State, 517 So.2d 641 (Ala.Cr.App.1987), and in order for custody to be lawful the arrest must be legal.
Section 15-10-3 sets forth the circumstances under which an officer may arrest an individual without having personal possession of the arrest warrant. At trial, the state relied on
“(a) An officer may arrest any person without a warrant, on any day and at any time ...:
“(6) When he has actual knowledge that a warrant for the person‘s arrest for the commission of a felony or misdemeanor has been issued, provided such warrant was issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. However, upon request he shall show the warrant to the arrested person as soon as possible. If the officer does not have the warrant in his possession at the time of arrest he shall then inform the defendant of the offense charged and of the fact that a warrant has been issued.”
(Emphasis added.) The appellant asserts that his arrest violated
Initially, we note that a contempt charge may be either “criminal” or “civil” in nature. It is unclear from the record whether the appellant‘s contempt was “civil” or “criminal.” Regardless, nowhere in the Code is “contempt” classified as a misdemeanor or felony. Indeed,
The punishment for criminal contempt is specified by statute. “The circuit court may punish contempts by fines not exceeding $100.00 and by imprisonment not exceeding five days.”
According to
We recognize that the appellant may have fallen through a crack in our statutory law. It is unlikely that the legislature intended the result we now reach. However,
We call upon the legislature to amend this statute so that what has occurred here will not occur in the future. If the legislature wants to create an additional ground for lawful arrest without a warrant for failure to pay child support, this case would serve as an example of a fact situation that might justify such a statute. We are keenly aware, however, that our branch of government is obliged to interpret and apply laws and not to make them.
For the reasons discussed above, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the Circuit Court for Baldwin County for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
All the Judges concur, except COBB, J., who dissents with opinion.
The holding of the majority in this matter causes me great concern. To rule as the majority does would mean that in order to arrest someone who failed to appear for court, the law enforcement officer must have the warrant in his hand. I do not believe that this was the intent of the Legislature when they enacted
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.