730 So. 2d 261 | Ala. Crim. App. | 1998
Wilbur Rodney King was convicted of intimidating a witness, a violation of §
King's witness-intimidation conviction arose out of a situation of domestic violence and, in that regard, appears to present a case of first impression in Alabama.1 the State's evidence tended to show the following: Patricia S. King had filed for divorce from the appellant, Wilbur Rodney King, in February 1996. Civil restraining orders and criminal arrest warrants were issued after Mr. King repeatedly harassed Mrs. King. Mr. King violated a restraining order in March 1996; that violation resulted in a petition for a rule nisi. Mr. King was ordered to appear in family court on May 31, 1996, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for violating the restraining order. On April 26, 1996, Mr. King was arrested and charged with making a harassing communication. A trial on the harassing communication charge was set for May, but was continued until June 4.
Mrs. King was a party, a subpoenaed witness, or the prosecuting witness in all the above-described proceedings. On May 25, 1996, while the proceedings were pending, Mr. King telephoned Mrs. King's mother; however, Mrs. King's brother, Bob Smith, answered the telephone. Smith testified that during the conversation, Mr. King "started making threats about my sister and going along with whatever deal he wanted for the divorce, and that if things didn't go his way he would see to it that she was dead and that everybody that tried to help her, he would take care of them too. . . ." (R. 90.) Smith also testified that Mr. King specifically stated that he would "cut out her eyes and send them back to [the family]." (R. 90-91). Almost immediately after that telephone conversation, Mr. King again called Smith. Realizing that it could be Mr. King, Smith did not answer the telephone, but let the answering machine record the repeated death threats.
Section
*263"(a) A person commits the crime of intimidating a witness if he attempts, by use of a threat directed to a witness or a person he believes will be called as a witness in any official proceedings, to:
"(1) Corruptly influence the testimony of that person;
"(2) Induce that person to avoid legal process summoning him to testify; or
"(3) Induce that person to absent himself from an official proceeding to which he has been legally summoned.
"(b) Threat, as used in this section, means any threat proscribed by Section13A-6-25 on criminal coercion."
Section
"(a) A person commits the crime of criminal coercion if, without legal authority, he threatens to confine, restrain or to cause physical injury to the threatened person or another, or to damage the property or reputation of the threatened person or another with intent thereby to induce the threatened person or another against his will to do an unlawful act."
The State's evidence tended to show that Mr. King knew or at the very least believed that his wife, Mrs. King, would be called as a witness, or would be a party or the prosecuting witness, in the proceedings against him, given the nature of the proceedings. During the telephone conversation with Smith, Mr. King made physical threats directed toward Mrs. King and her family. He also made specific reference to what he wanted as part of the property settlement in the divorce. (R. 90). Bob Smith testified that during his telephone conversation with Mr. King, Mr. King "started making threats about my sister and going along with whatever deal he wanted for the divorce, and that if things didn't go his way he would see to it that tried to help her, he would see to it that she was dead and that everybody that tried to help her, he would take care of them too. . . ." (R.90). Bob Smith further testified that Mr. King specifically stated that he would "cut out her eyes and send them back to [the family]." (R. 90-91.)
After conceding that the message left on the answering machine was "rude, crude and certainly constituted harassing communications," Mr. King argues that the message did not, however, constitute the crime of intimidating a witness because, he says, it did not "corruptly influence the testimony of that person." (Appellant's brief, p. 4.) Mr. King further contends that there was "no nexus between the harassing phone calls and any purported testimony in the divorce or any intent on the part of the Defendant with the exception to annoy and harass the complainant." (Appellant's brief, p. 6.)
However, the answering machine recorded three messages, each one containing expletives and death threats, referring to the graveyard, "maggot bait", and nonexistence. Specifically, one message stated, "if you want to have a 30-year-old daughter, you better talk to her because she ain't gonna reach 31." "Tell that son of a bitch she better agree with what I gave her, if not, the motherfucker is going to be maggot bait." (State's exhibit 3.) Based on the foregoing, it is clear that it was Mr. King's intent to coerce his wife, Patricia King, into acquiescing to his divorce demands by the use of physical threats.
Yet, Mr. King argues that the calls did not constitute intimidation because, he says, he did not corruptly influence testimony as required to violate §
Furthermore, when an appellate court reviews a conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, the appellate court "must accept as true all evidence introduced by the State, accord the State all legitimate inferences therefrom, and consider all evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution." Faircloth v. State,
Therefore, it is our opinion that the foregoing evidence presented by the State is sufficient evidence from which a jury might reasonably conclude that Wilbur Rodney King was guilty of intimidating a witness. See Bolden v. State,
The Voudrie seven-pronged test for admission of sound recordings was deemed no longer applicable in Jackson v. State,
Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not err by admitting the tape-recording from the answering machine.
For the above-stated reasons, the judgment of the trial court is due to be, and is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
LONG, P. J., and McCMILLAN, BROWN, and BASCHAB, JJ., concur.
