Jordan v. StateJordan v. State
The appellant was indicted for violation of
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The trial court initially ascertained the competency to testify of the eleven-year-old and the eight-year-old eyеwitness to the offense.
The victim testified that she and her parents went to her sister‘s apartment on Hargrove Road in Tuscaloosa County on the afternoon of September 1, 1979. The victim‘s sister аnd her family were planning a cookout, and the victim and her eight-year-old friend were to spеnd the night together afterwards.
Around 7:30 or 8:00 p.m., after everyone had eaten, and while the adults werе watching television, the two young girls went outside to play near the back door of the
As requested, the children entered the back door of appellant‘s аpartment into his kitchen. They walked into the living room and from there the appellant took the girls into the bathroom. In the bathroom the appellant exposed his penis to the girls and, on thе pretext of having caught it in the zipper of his pants, told the eleven-year-old victim to helр him “get this thing out of his zipper.” She complied by jiggling the zipper for a “couple of minutes” with appellant urging her “to keep on trying.” After she stopped trying to jiggle his zipper the appellant put his penis “back inside his pants.” Appellant then told the girls not to tell their parents what had happened and they left his apartment.
They then returned to apartment number fourteen and “went upstairs to clean up the room.” The eight-year-old witness then told her mother what had happened. The victim stated, “I was going to tell my mother and daddy, but they had already gone home.” The older child‘s mоther was notified and she returned to the apartment; the police were called and they came to investigate.
I
Appellant maintains that
As this court stated in Chambers v. State, 364 So.2d 416 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 364 So.2d 420 (Ala. 1978) quoting from Jordan v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223, 71 S.Ct. 703, 95 L.Ed. 886 (1951).
“Wе have several times held that difficulty in determining whether certain marginal offenses are within the meаning of the language under attack as vague does not automatically render a statute unconstitutional for indefiniteness. United States v. Wurzback, 1930, 280 U.S. 396, 399, 50 S.Ct. 167, 168, 74 L.Ed. 508. Impossible standards of specificity are not required. United States v. Petrillo, 1947, 332 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 1538, 91 L.Ed. 1877. The test is whether the language conveys sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices. Connally v. General Construction Co., 1926, 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322.”
Vagueness сhallenges to statutes which do not involve First Amendment freedoms must be examined in light of the facts of the case at hand. United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544, 95 S.Ct. 710, 42 L.Ed.2d 706 (1975); Chambers, supra. Applying these principles to the statute and facts before us, we have no difficulty in upholding the constitutionality of Section 13-1-113. The appellant‘s conduct was revoltingly blatant and in no sense “borderline.”
II
The State properly proved venue as being in Tuscaloоsa County. Sandy Neville testified without objection that her sister‘s apartment on Hargrove Road and “the apartment next door” was in Tuscaloosa County. In addition, Sherrill Brown, Sandy‘s sister, testified that in Seрtember of 1979 she lived in the Hargrove Road Apartments “here in Tuscaloosa County.” Thus, venue was sufficiently proved from persons having personal knowledge of the locus of the crime. Therе is no basis in fact for appellant‘s contention.
Whether leading questions will be allowed is within the discretion of the trial court. Jones v. State, 292 Ala. 126, 290 So.2d 165 (1974). A witness’ testimony becomes legal evidence if it is received without оbjection. Wilson v. State, 52 Ala. App. 680, 296 So.2d 774, cert. denied, 292 Ala. 759, 296 So.2d 778 (1974).
III
Appellant‘s final contention is that the trial court erred in assessing a fine
Under §§
We have carefully searched the record for errors injuriously affecting the substantial rights of appellant and have found none. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges co