*1 529 57, 249 Ala.App. Cunningham State, 47 testimony v. Jimmy Campbell of In the that whether held 877, Court this set forth. hereinabove So.2d facts was based on in-court identification 307, State, Ala.App. 285 51 McCay In v. lineup, and police other than those of the denied, 788, 117, 291 Ala. certiorari So.2d influence, the was was for free from .Court 122,this Court said: 285 So.2d testimony the adduced. to decide from “Hence, respect in- only question with trial held that the the this case the court not the taint was whether court free from identification identifications were the require totality independent would on of circumstances and were based sources. go that defendant matter law the as a carefully record We have examined the free. that dis- found no error merits have conviction, proper turbing judgment is a do not think this the “We application of so drastic is due case for the the case to be affirmed. prosecution. upon Here the penalty the AFFIRMED. varying degrees identi- defendant was by one witness. Some fied more than All concur. Judges good give reasonably able de- tails, McCay’s not. alibi tes- others were
timony quite threadbare.” 227, State, Ala.App.
In Thomas 50 278 v. 230,this held:
So.2d Court line-up cir-
“The
tainted
unfairly con-
do not show an
cumstances
583
329 So.2d
line-up,
it
nor was
shown
stituted
McDONALD
an unneces-
Thomas D.
been
such
have
conducted
suggestive manner as to be condu-
sarily
v.
irreparable mistaken identifica-
cive to
STATE.
line-up were
Even if the
tion.
ready the in- to show that alluded by rape identification
court victim origin, hence, independent an fulfill-
had legal requirements.”
ing the 613, State, Ala.App.
In Hannon 48 266 v. 825,this said:
So.2d Court hold in-court identification
“We This lineup. is a
was not tainted ‘independent source.’ case She
clear ‘eye-balled’ him
knew because during robbery. five minutes State, Ala.App. 45 228
Robinson v. 850; State, Ala.App. 44 v. So.2d Grace Allen, 259; 251 State v. So.2d
La. 705.” So.2d *3 Manning Roberts, Salmon, &
Watts, Huntsville, appellant. Noojin, *5 Gen., Atty. William Baxley, William J. Bowen, Jr., M. McKnight and William G. Gen., the State. Attys.
Asst.
DeCARLO, Judge. Thomas D. McDonald was convicted bribery and years. sentenced to three All judges of the of the 23rd Circuit Judicial recused Justice, themselves. The Chief Heflin, assigned Howell T. the Hon. L. S. Moore, Supernumerary Circuit preside this over case. trial, appellant plea
Before filed a upon abatement based fraud and other irregularities making up jury box 534 pending before ing, by law was which returning the grand jury from which the cause, capacity, to-wit: The in his official Appellant also indictment was drawn. proceeding being a criminal question or right jury filed a waiver written Myra Layton prosecution of said Braid- pre-trial grounds trial on of extensive Layton, Myra Braidfoot foot, alias publicity, did a motion for but file Braidfoot, Layton Myra the said wherein change plea abate of venue. Both the Layton, was Myra Braidfoot by alias ment and the motion waive trial Larceny under charged with Grand jury properly court. overruled Alabama, and State of said 690, of the State, laws Ala.App. Shields v. So.2d being otherwise prosecution . criminal
786
vs.
Alabama
as the State
identified
appeal, appellant
On
also challenges
Layton
Myra
Braidfoot,
Paul Duane
the court’s action in hearing the evidence
Defendants,
No.
Case
97467,
Braidfoot,
on the plea in abatement without
jury.
Huntsville, Madi-
Court,
County
Madison
The record does not
objection by
reflect an
said
Alabama,
that the
County,
son
defense counsel and failure to
this
submit
Mc-
McDonald, alias Tom
Thomas D.
matter
jury
to a
prejudicial
was not
County
Donald,
Madison
as
appellant. Racine
State,
684,
v.
291 Ala.
County,
Huntsville, Madison
Court,
marked how attractive Following visit, tinued. the last report- about their con- anything not recall else ed the incident lawyer Decatur, to her versation. and the case was later transferred another court. testimony as to the third occasion Her was: McDonald, Thomas D. Judge of the General time, Sessions Court of happened the third Madison
“Q. What County, January since please prior ma’am? time, to this Judge of the Madison County Well, in his Chambers we were “A. Court, testified in his own behalf. He re- up getting again, and as we were called that on December 9th or 16th of could me leave he asked A.M., about 9:30 he sent either his Kings Inn at 10:00. meet him at bailiff or clerk to Myra summons Braid- you what? Asked “THE COURT: foot to his alone, chambers. She was *7 either he or the bailiff closed the door. He Kings Inn If I meet him at “A. could sat at his desk and she sat on the sofa or a at 10:00. chair. He Myra informed Braidfoot her “Q. The asked her Defendant attorney would They be late. discussed her Kings meet him at the could Inn charges, but he did not recall telling her at 10:00. she was attractive. He asking denied right. just a “THE All I’m COURT: meet Inn, him at the Kings but stated hearing. little hard of may have taken her arm and escorted her to the door. anything “Q. you Did he or touch time, squeeze you? He stated morning docket had not completed. been Ordinarily court was re- my put “A. He his arm around waist cessed after the first A.M., call until 10:00 Defendant, Mc- “Q. This Thomas sometimes preliminary hearings would continue into the Donald? afternoon.
536 7, 12 Bribery states this test § Am.Jur.2d for determining value: Appellant’s the indictment demurrer to “It seems that a bribe must involve some- grounds, contained 84 and he insists the thing of value that is used to influence brief, overruling in In its erred it. action Value, or though, non-action. is grouped grounds the State these under four determined by application sub- general arguments, and the court’s action jective, objective, test, rather than an will be evaluated in this context. requirement is value satis- thing fied if the apprise The indictment not has
1.
does
sufficient value in
certainty
person
the accued
the mind of the
with reasonable
of the
concerned so
that his
charged.
act or acts with which he is
actions are influenced.”
State,
Alabama,
supra, Judge
in
for the
Som-
In Caruthers v.
No code form exists
14,
64, supra.
in T.
erville
denounced
wrote:
offense
§
in the
charged the offense
The indictment
necessarily
‘thing’ does
“The word
State,
statute,
32
Harris v.
words of the
.
.
includes
mean a
.
substance.
[I]t
794,
519,
Ala.App.
and it suffi-
27 So.2d
act,
an
or action.”
ciently
essential elements of the
recited the
requisite
bribery.
general
offense of
in
v.
recognized
Scott
The Ohio court
description
apparent.
the offense was
19,
State,
475,
107
141 N.E.
Ohio St.
State,
Caruthers v.
pressly
for in T.
Code
§
corruptly
be
influenced.
of Alabama.
stated
generally
duties were
The official
specifies
Where
statute
several
in this manner:
ways
may
an
be
in which
offense
commit
ted, they may
charged
one indictment
act, opinion, de-
.
.
“.
[T]hat
using conjunctions
to connect
count
given in a
would
judgment
cision or
States, Cir.,
them. Arellanes v. United
particular
manner,
upon a
particular
537 At the time was arrested she on the Myra in a manner beneficial to the said check, Eades, Tourway Billy city Inn a Layton Braidfoot . . .” policeman, accompanied her Mc- protect corrupt The law does not a Donald’s office. The officer asked the ¡because judge powers, he exceeds his judge help and working her because she was only. People his actions are police. time, “colorable” with the At that the Tour- Jackson, 65; v. 84 way 191N.Y. Inn N.E. Wells check flight and the Ohio war- State, 203; v. 174 129 pending Tenn. S.W.2d rant against cases were her. After States, Whitney Cir., v. United 99 F.2d Officer Eades Judge McDonald, talked to jail 327. she remained out of and continued to help police. the gravamen of the offense is October, 1971, In she appel- was before acceptance the and solicitation of the bribe issuing lant’s for court a worthless check Sharp influence official conduct. v. to Southern Airlines. On advice the States, Cir., United 138F. 878. bailiff, she judge’s went to the chambers
to discuss the judge case. The advised II get lawyer, warrant, her to be- defective,
ing was Subsequent- dismissed. ly, she was proof, re-arrested To sustain its burden of new warrant the State appellant and went to see in his offered evidence of similar chambers. transactions to intent, motive, Her was: design testimony show and scheme. This evidence involved four other females “A. He asked me I could meet him
having coming appellant’s matters before in his Chambers—I mean meet him. attending the court and facts relative to why, I asked he said he wanted to appellants. their transactions with talk to me and get that he could it
Appellant insists taken care of. the trial court erred allowing urgently this and evidence con- “Q. the case Get taken care of? testimony Cheryn tends that the For- Blann, sythe, Gwathney, Brenda Laura and “A. Yes.” preserved, anonymity one other whose was next, day she met Either that or the palpably prejudicial. was and erroneous Big appellant parking at the Gun lot of Cheryn Forsythe The facts as related him in her car Store followed were: just George Realty. It after Fann was they and both went dark when arrived March, 1971, she came before In awhile, talking into office. After for charge issuing on a a worth- McDonald but judge himself a few drinks mixed Tourway After a de- Inn. less check to any. testi- the witness did not have She hearing, charge preliminary mand for having fied that after sexual intercourse the District amended on motion of was couch, he told with on the Upon Attorney, pleaded guilty. she days to bring money by in a few costs, fine and the sentence payment of the Eventually pay the she took check. After resti- suspended restitution. back money to him and never went tution, jail was remitted. sentence on that case. court 1, 1971, April was arrested on On pro- growing of a fugitive October, warrant out she was arrested on This in the State of Ohio. bation violation nine go- worthless check cases after time on from time to ing case was continued office, to the sheriff’s three additional prosecution dis- motion and placed her own against Again, warrants were her. 27,May missed on 1971. appellant’s she went to the He office. *9 fine, was and this sentence later ment personal told her she make a bond could suspended. worry, on those warrants and not to that lawyer. she wouldn’t need a She was di- once the to his office on had been She plead guilty get money rected to and the a again and on Airline case Southern time, pay to the checks. At this she was accompanied when lodging and case board pregnant, judge put his arms her meet police. did not ask to He her back and buttocks and tried around lot, Drive or parking Governors him at a to kiss her. Store, go to and did not Big at the Gun he was Realty with her. When Fann meeting After this she went to court warrants, check the worthless consulted on every Tuesday ap- and when a check make restitution. encouraged her to he docket, peared appellant on the asked if his arm kissing putting denied He she had the to make money restitution.' any time. her at around it, not, paid, If she had it was she and given pay was two or three weeks to Gwathney, the evidence toAs Brenda plead guilty, 1972, check. Each time she would August, she went In was: submitted suspended pay- the sentence was and after a to answer Judge to McDonald’s court ment of re- court costs sentence was charge. entered She worthless check mitted. that plea guilty restitution on and made money pay having enough Not date. March, 1973, In she was arrested on fine, so appellant continued the case other worthless check cases. It was about money. get the The case was she could newspaper publicity this re- time was 5, September payment suspended for until concerning Judge leased han- McDonald’s pay, 1972, was unable to and when she dling of her cases. Judge McDonald. While she went see chambers, he asked talking him in his arrest, After she called the got As she she lived and worked. where a cash jail, from to see if she make could leave, kiss her appellant tried to up to it, told a would do bond. She was friend give her another week he and said would he could do her. and that was all or so. 1973, April, she testified before again The case was continued at her re- two County Jury and after quest Madison Grand to October 1972. At the October jury days testimony, she related to setting, appearance she late was for her involving her relation- the circumstances in court judge’s and went to the chambers ship again. with McDonald. money She still didn’t have the pay upset the fine because of the Cheryn For- testified Judge McDonald pending jail sentence. McDonald check cases sythe had three worthless sympathized and As continued the case. in the Madison bigamy pending case leaving, put he his arms around on the check. County The warrants Court. her and judge’s kissed her. The door charges were executed on October chambers was closed each occasion. given from time to and continuances testimony Her about the last visit was: on these appearances time. court On days. cases, thirty “A. He asked if I get she was sentenced to at could out no, him police night told and I officers told him I Subsequently, some on a series working an informer couldn’t. she was as they requested robberies “Q. Did say anything your about agreed to co- keep jail. He her out of case? she was operate and to it that saw day thirty imprisoned. She received give “A. that he would me all the Just pay- pending suspended It was sentence. time that needed.” *10 court, day back she The last she went to Yes, “A. sir. He told not to ever me McDonald, in- was Judge didn’t see but plead guilty. girls in the office formed one “Q. Judge The you told what then? dropped. that her case had been “A. He told worry me not to about it knowledge, his Judge McDonald stated to plead and guilty, that he Gwathney sentenced Brenda was not would talk for me and he would jail appearance her in his first court. get everything squared away. The case was continued several times. in her was to a death One continuance due
family. plead He said, guilty any- “A. ‘Don’t check, Restitution had been made on the thing, regardless is, of what it be- and fine and costs were On remitted. you always cause have a chance of chambers, he came to his the occasion she beating it in Court.’ putting his arm her recalled around kiss- escorting “Q. her He denied to the door. The you told that? get ing asking if she out her or could Yes, “A. sir. night. at “Q. that, Before he said had he said relating facts Laura Blann as dis- anything you given you he—had by the closed record were: October any compliments anything like appeared McDonald’s that, just get or did right he into charge. forgery court on a it? preliminary appearance, her first At Yes, “A. told me he I had beautiful “overruled”, hearing was but she continued eyes. charges. to return because of additional Testimony regarding her first conversation “Q. What, Go ahead. if anything, hap- appellant with was: pened ? Then “A. he told me not worry about
“Q. Now, right. All tell the Court the bigamy charge, the State jury, please, exactly hap- what prosecute wouldn’t a woman on pened that you time when first had bigamy anyway. a conversation Judge. with the “A. He asked office, me to come his
that he would my like to talk about “Q. Did he you touch any way? So, cases with I him. in his went “A. put Yes. He his hands on me. alone, office leaving my husband outside, standing said, ‘Well, and he “Q. you Where were seated? I’m concerned about all these for- “A. sitting was on his sofa his gery charges you Said, have.’ office. you got ‘How have them?’ I ex- plained to him that I had it done “Q. Where was he ? they my had sent checks “A. He sitting me, besides up fingerprints when I they and that got up put to leave he coming just arm back at one me, around me and time, he tried to they kiss they would arrest me as and I my turned head and he did came in.
kiss my me on cheek. “Q. He tried you to kiss on the mouth? “Q. you guilty, You told the Judge Yes. “A. you had done it ? night April. 1973, she was theOn you?
“Q. all did touch Where Just *11 County Cheryn in the Madison with jury. and tell the Court Jail Cheryn sug- Forsythe, any but denied made and my me on breast He “A. touched she, help gestion Blann, that Laura could my leg. he rubbed against judge. by testifying the herself having any also She denied been shown map judge’s the office. fol- my did He asked me husband “A. Appellant not know testified he did any and there low around was me her Blann until case came before Laura him, and possible way I could meet con- having court but remembered one his said, ‘Well, better and he we then in his versation with her chambers. go Courtroom. back his approached him at the door She is recess over.’ It was speak him. and asked to office to give an answer
“Q. You didn’t him A.M., and his knowl- to just before 10:00 at time ? sat He lock the edge, he did not door. on couch or desk sat his and at she No. “A. a chair. you Did “Q. ask to call him? he against bigamy charge pending A was Yes, him he me I call “A. told could her, lawyer; he her to a and advised have him, any time any I needed time innocent, and presumed was be that she to a that I was arrested and needed Nothing so, guilty. plead if should not my any of dropped, bond or either — him, and calling her was mentioned about get- any help in that needed friends he any when not recall occasion did he down, ting he would bond cut their her give her He did not offered a drink. help.” meet whiskey her any and did not ask to way ap- him at the Inn. Tour The next she had with conversation for- pellant was when she was arrested on Inn or Tourway key offer of a to No placed charges gery “pretense” made, he did nor help her friends was County tele- in the She Madison Jail. leg kiss rub her her. prelim- phoned judge her to continue witness, inary anonymous her case would the tes- hearing. He told As to the up, should when timony set she call be but was: got she home. March, 1971, auto theft an Around against pending charge her brother was couple days, phoned After she judge appellant’s She went to court. his of- judge was asked to come told and was to ask a bond could set explained one He fice afternoon. his for cost a hundred dollars it would talking tele- to be had careful over the release. office, Upon phone. arrival at his if she door and asked locked the money, borrowing the the bond After refused, she like a drink. When would her for appellant arranged was made and gave he man” and he said was “scotch brought the court- down to brother to put again bourbon. He her a bottle of waiting they were room. While kiss hands her and tried to her. following brother, occurred: the Tour- asked meet him at was She my they bringing give her While “A. way Inn and was told would sit- my responded brother down mother key. that she had a room She lobby, ting in the meet out appointment and couldn’t a dental me like meet said that he would him. thought that I me I went inside and place and talk to “A. some other about going to the talk my brother. about my brother. this did “Q. mother didn’t hear Your object to what “MR. MANNING: We she? thought. “A. No. object to “THE COURT: You what? objecting “MR. MANNING: I’m *12 “Q. Judge And so the said what now? operation. mental She testified to thought. what she “A. He said that he would like to meet No, thought. testifying I’m to what I “A. place me some other and talk to me my about brother’s case. say? What, you did “Q. anything if said, you he “Q. tell what what said Just you what did and what he did. okay. I said
“A. happened Now, what, anything, if What, inside, did the “Q. anything you got if did then what he do after say? say
or or do? I Judge. He said that I him at inside with the “A. would meet I went “A. there, ready to Fann at was Realty sitting 7:00. I was my brother’s case him about talk to he not I knew that was because go “Q. you Did with the No. not taking the car. I did guilty of you your did automo- drive own go there— bile or what ? my “A. I own automobile. drove “Q. get you a drink before Did he a drink? y’all did have go? “Q. you where to Did know No, I didn’t. No, “A. Judge. I followed the “A. himself one? He fixed “Q. up
“Q. you meet with the Where did “A. Yes. Judge? drink, fixed a After he himself “Q. in “A. here ‘front of Courthouse. Our he what did do? you “Q. And followed him? off. me to take clothes my He asked “A. there y’all have sexual relations “Q. Did Yes, “A. I did. at the time ? Realty, you got Fann “Q. And when “A. Yes. you go did inside ? finished, what, anything, if “Q. After he Yes, “A. I did. you? he say did he Did ask you to call him? “Q. go you together Did or how? Yes, he “A. did.” Yes, waiting I think he in the
“A. pulled car when in. judge in She next saw the reference to speeding payment
a
ticket and asked that
get
money.
until
postponed
she could
happened then?
What,
anything,
if
“Q.
indicating
she
Later
received a letter
she
jury
and tell'
ahead
Go
contempt
be in
if
would
she did
come
what,
happened.
anything
Court
having
key
judge in his
He denied ever
to the back
she saw
to court. When
Realty.
only
been
door of Fann
time he
chambers,
the case had
he told her
way
keys
front
when he
only
had
to the
door was
but
letter
continued
office,
hung pictures
they
and these
getting to see her. While
up behind,
the door when he
alone, he
were left in
finished.
walked
his chambers
feeling
her arms and started
under
reached
grounds
urged upon
been
Numerous
have
“to let
asked
of her breasts.
She
judgment
this court for a reversal of the
He did tell her
go” and she left.
every
although each and
one was
again.
her case
continue
would
only
separately
severally,
considered
'
pertinent ones
reviewed
will be
here.
again
met the
Later
principal
regard,
we believe the
concerning
peace
Realty
bond
at Fann
necessary
rendering
de-
question
appel-
had
against her
She
known
husband.
in this matter
cision
involves
admission
years
ten
and had seen him
lant for about
intent,
of “similar transactions” to show
where
times in the clubs
she had
a few
motive, design and scheme.
aas
barmaid.
worked
*13
in a
rule that
recognized
a
witness
It
is well
testified this
Judge McDonald
offense, proof
particular
for a
by
prosecution
on her
stop
his office
would sometimes
of
March,
guilty
is
accused
tending
show that
In
Registrar’s office.
way to the
times
at other
committing
crimes
other
in
re-
his office
1973,
to see him
came
inadmissible,
though they are simi-
against
even
pending
charge
is
a criminal
garding
charged in the indictment.
one
get
of
to the
him out
lar
She wanted
her brother.
State,
v.
above mentioned our determination of this issue He three left. while the after a short involving the admission of “similar trans parking a minute in her talked with actions,” testimony we assessed in the speeding ticket. concerning lot light of certain limitations outlined de fense counsel. clothes, not to remove did ask her He her. relations with First, did not have sexual found that connection and we see did he ever At pattern no time afterwards existed between the similar trans- Realty Fann office. charged. her at the actions and This was offense es, is, that similar charg- to the ones following by the facts from the indicated [sic] Indictment, State, ed in the con- testimony the four witnesses: tends that did commit other similar of- defendants or All were women were 1. Now, fenses. again, once I’m saying pending in matters before the interested whether that part contention judge. false, State is true or but present it does judge’s 2. Each one went to the cham- issue, an jury it’s for say whether bers. it’s true or false. At the conclusion of entered, 3. After each door that kind evidence limited that evi- closed. dence, remember, you as your consid- question eration of the of intent one 4. Each was alone with the Judge may or may not had in have his chambers. the case that we trying, are and to the help 5. offered each aid or plan scheme or may or action that he pending before matters him. dealing have had in his with this Braid- judge hugged, 6. kissed or touched foot woman named in the Indictment. each. All 7. judge. asked meet the “Now, trying we are not him for these Second, with the appellant’s transactions offenses, other merely evidence, it’s were not too remote respective witnesses is your evidence limited in Cochran, Cir., time; States v. United consideration of the case that are we 380, and within these occurred 499 F.2d trying, question intent, to the as scheme intervals: plan.” *14 November-December, 1971. Braidfoot Based on the foregoing, judgment our is October, 1971-October, 1972. Forsythe the admitting court’s action in testimony the September-October, 1972. Gwathney of showing intent, similar transactions mo- December, 1972-January, 1973. Blann tive, design and proper. scheme was March, March, 1973. Anonymous 1971- Ill Third, the similar transac- of evidence proof though the admissible even tions was strongly It is by insisted appellant that prove the simi- to not sufficient shown was the evidence was insufficient to authorize doubt. beyond a reasonable lar offenses a conviction. State, supra.
Scott v. To constitute accept an offer to Fourth, excluding general the rule bribe, thing the solicited must be valuable evidence of similar transactions does not and may be some State, act. Caruthers v. apply inquiry it is when material to the to supra. charged show the intent with which the act The Alabama statute condemns an offer State, supra. Roden was committed. v. accept to by promise a bribe of a “thing of evidence, in After this order admission of value”, and a may conviction be had on prejudice ap- to that no accrued to insure proof that an accept offer to by an accused pellant, the trial admonished the was made exchange for his par- official jury purpose as to evidence tiality in matters pending before him. trial, again at the of close instructed Although the evidence jury before the in this jury manner: was in dispute, it could be inferred from “Now, has State made an effort this statement testimony, Braidfoot’s “if by to that evidence that the show I met him at the Kings Inn we could talk has committed other offens- some similar about the maybe situation and take care of 544 agreement an understand- an or with under “thing of asking for it,” appellant was act, ing opinion, judg- decision or that himself. to” “act beneficial or an
value” manner, given particular be in a ment would , particular cause, of a . . . upon or side is limited “value” The word Myra prosecution criminal said being a things generally received to desirable Braidfoot, , Layton charged with . . . is the The of value bribery test cases. Larceny the laws under State Grand question. thing in for the person of a desire Alabama,” and that “would dismiss State, supra. v. Scott dismissed, nol-pros to be or cause or cause relevant, have shown Authorities nol-prossed, reduce or cause by as committed transactions those similar reduced, cause continue to to be con- Fall admissible. v. United appellant are tinued, dispose of or have or otherwise State, States, supra; Scott supra; v. White disposed of, prosecution in said criminal State, State, supra. and Roden v. supra, v. Myra Layton said a manner beneficial ” “pattern” Appellant argues the evidence . . . Braidfoot. nothing as of value was was inadmissible Braidfoot Mrs. testified on her third A Braidfoot or others. solicited chambers, Judge’s visit to “he said matter similarity between the Braidfoot King’s him at the Inn talk met we could apparent. It pattern testimony is maybe situation about the take care of appellant’s reasonably be inferred that could it.” She told she would meet him there. intent, motive, design in all of and scheme Appellant promise agreement made no and it was were the same the transactions specifically about the case. anything do high judicial exchange his his intent agreed talk about the only He “to situation he personally what desired. functions for (Emphasis take of it.” care maybe supplied). evidence, legal is there Where case, jury can from which inas this appellant’s with women conduct other guilty, the accused fair inference find intent, motive, certainly pattern, shows right no to disturb the ver this court has however, intent alone is insufficient State, Ala.App. v. Haggler dict. positive spelled out support the averments 690. So.2d The above conversation the indictment. *15 specificity appellant of action lacked Affirmed. charged as the indictment. review- On concur. Judges All the evidence, ing unable find an I am promise agreement appellant actual nol-pros Mrs. REHEARING would dismiss Braidfoot’s ON exchange sug- for her case in He favors. Application overruled. meeting gested talking, although and pattern we may believe from of con- TYSON, HARRIS CATES, J., and P. illegal proposition, duct he would make an DeCARLO, JJ., concur. nevertheless, we do not know for he never point. got to that BOOKOUT, (dissenting): application considering After re- appellant, charges indictment “ hearing, I have sufficient doubt that I now unlawfully and . . . . did . . believe the seriousness of case . agree accept . accept or . corruptly charges our involved review on deserve to the do an act beneficial promise to rehearing. , McDonald, . to- . . D. said Thomas intercourse, promise of Sexual wit: from one . . intercourse .
sexual woman, Layton, a Myra . Braidfoot .
.