Bozeman v. State Court Opinion; Envelope

    \..)) r. ,1. ,- '.', \ '

168 Ala. 4or souTHERN BEPORTE& 2d SERIES

2. Crlminal Law ell{4.13(2)
On rcview, C,ourt of Criminal APPeals

is required to consider evidence in light

most fsvoreble to Prcsecution'

3. Criminal l,aw oal144'13(4' 5)

Court of Criminal Appeals must take

evidence favorable to pr"osecution 8s true'

and sccotd to state all legitimate inferences

thernefrcm.

4. Crimlnel Law ea552(l)

Cirrcumstantial evidener must be sc-

corded same weight as direct evidence when

it points to aecused as guilty party'

5. Criminal Law o4742(l)

Truthfulness of testimony is for triers

of fact.

6. Electiona e329
In prcsecution for voting violations' ev-

idence was sufficient to support conviction'

?. JurY c=33(5)

In prcsecution for voting violations' de-

fendantls constitutional rights were not vio-

lated when State used its peremptory

strikes to exclude all btacks from jury ve-

nire.

Solomon S. SeaY, Jr' of GraY, SeaY &

Langford, Montgomery, for appellant'

Charles A. Graddiek, AttY' Gen', and

Thomas R. Jones, Jr., Asst' Atty' Gen'' for

appellee.

DeCARLO, Judge.

The grand jury of Pickens County indict-

ed the appellant and charged her in a three-

count iniictment with voting morr than

once or depoaiting more than one absentee

ballot for the ssme office as her vote' or

casting illegal or fraudulent absentee bal-

lots. This is a companion case to Wilder v'

State,40l So.zd f51 (f981)'

The indictment in this case, omitting the

formal Parts, rcads as follows:

"The Grand Jury of said County charge

that, before the finding of this indict'

ment, Maggie S. Bozeman, whoae name

to the Grand Jury is otherwis€ unknown:

.COUNT ONE

"did vote more thsn onse' or did depoait

more than one ballot for the rame office

as her vote, or did vote illegally or fraud-

ulently, in the Democratic Primary Run-

off Election of SePtember 26, 19i18,

..COUNT TWO

"did vote more than once aE an abaentee

voter, or did deposit more than one absen-

tee ballot for the same office or offices as

her vote, or did cast illegal or fraudulent

abeentee ballots, in the Democratic Pri-

mary Run'off Election of September 26'

1978,

..COUNT THREE

"did cast illegal or fraudulent absentee

ballots in the Democratic Primary Bun-

off Election of September 26, 1918, in

that she did deposit with the Pickens

C,ounty Circuit Clerk, aboentce ballots

which were fraudulent and which ahe

knew to be fraudulent, against the peace

and dignity of the Stste of Alabama'"

After a twodaY trial which ended on

November 2, 19?9, the appellant was found

guilty as charged in the indictment and

Lntenced to four years imprisonment' She

gave notice of appeal and filed a motion for

I new trial. The motion was aubsequently

denied when no testimony or argument was

made on behalf of the motion'

The evidence presented at trial was sub

stantiallY as follows:

Ms. Janice Tilley'a testimony concerning

absentee voting procedur"es was substsntial-

ly aimilar to her testimony in WrTder' suPra'

Ms. Tilley stated that the week preceding

the Septcmber 26, 19?8 Democratic Primary

Bun-oif Election ahe gzve the appellant

approximately twenty'five to thirty abeen-

tee voting 
"ppliotiont. 

Me' Tllley t€stified

that the appellant came to the Pickens

C,ounty Circrrit Clerk's office rcquesting the

applications on s€veral occasions' Ms' Til-

ley specifically remembered reeing the ep
pellant on Septembet 25th in the company



S

NT ONE

ran onoe, or did deposit
llot for the ssme office
vote illegally or fraud_

mocratic Primary Run-
ptember zli, lg?g,

{T TWO

rn onqe as an absentee
t more than one absen_
tme office or offices as
rt illegal or fraudulent
t the Democratic pri-
tion of September 26,

THREE

fraudulent abeentee
rcratic Primary Run_
rtember 2i, lglg, in
rit with the pickens
rk, aboentee ballots
Ient and which she
nt against the peace
State of Alabama.,'

ial whieh ended on
appellant was found
the indictment and
iimprisonment. She
nd filed a motion for
)n was subseguently
ny or argument was
motion.

ed at trial was sub

stimony concerning
neE waa eubgtantial_
ny in WrTder, aupra.
he week preceding
)emocratic Primarry
pve the appellant
ve to thirty absen-
Ms. Tilley testified
p to the pickene

fice requeating the
pcasions. Mg. Til-
tcd oeeing tlre ap.
th in the oompany

Mrs. 
. Maudine Latham testified that shewas a rcgistered voter of pickens County

:nd 
stlt€d that she signed 

", "ppti""tlon-iivote absentee in the September 26, tgd
P"l:".",1. 

primary Run-off Et*ti;;: ;;;tcstified that she never rrcceived a balloi tovote.

^-Mrs. 
Annie B. phillips, Mrs. Mattie O.Gipson and Mr. Nat Dancy,s tcstimoiv wissutstantially the same 

"" 
it"i" t rti;;r;;

Wilder, supra.

, M.^: J"li" Richey testified that Jutia Wit-
der helped her to vote absentee i" d; D;_ocratic Primary Run-off Election. a;;;;;
no objection to the way Us. WiUe. iarlt
her ballot.

I

I

I

i

I

I

BOZEMAN v. STATE

;i:::Xtffil"t; LI'liL,x'H #ft,',xlx ^,. 
*,, 

ry *,,,,^:;",',::office-at that tiie, ilr,r," did not;;;: flffif*ltrJ[r11l?liiff**ber whe*rer appe'ant herserf *t'-J'"nv thai one J # ;; w, frcm *re apper-ba,ots to the office. Ms. Tirev rrti;;; l-anr M.. R.iil.;;ted thar he was paidil:T#,'#1"?;;f#if: $"jf ror his *;;..;,;T1 h: ouhequentry
west, Aliceville, Alabama ent to Pickens County to find trros.-peJ-

Dlring qrss+xamination, Ms. rlrey tes- ;ijil".r,:irffffi',1 1nfl"5#'k;tified th8t therre is no requirement that y!1, h.,r;;;;:;;- w8s sune he did not

ilrif,tj!":"l:1ffitr J,:,'"" 
ue picrJ s"]" p;;;;. io,l,, on", to s"pt",L-, il,

i

1

. Pickens County Sheriff Ircuie Coleman,s
testimony was substantially the ;;*;;
testimony in Wr?der, supra.

Mr. Charles Tate testified basically con_cerning his participation in inrertiiaiiro
-tt_votlnS irregulariries i, th" S";;;;;
1978 election. In counting ttre Uattots
which had been double lockJ in th" b"li;
box, Investigator Tatc observed tf,.t tf,i.tu_nine of the bailots had been 

"";;;';yPaul 
.C. 

Rollins. As part of his inrestiga"_
tion, Mr. Tate examined the pickens Coun;Circuit Clerk's recolds to verify *h"d;;
SrresRonding applications had Len filedfor the abeent€e ballots, whieh he found to
be the case.

- During crpss-examination, Mr. Tate testi_fied that the thirty_nine ballots, i"*J*i
lv {" Rotting, naaill u""n .""i"J;;;;
for the Eame person.

_ Mr. Paul L. Rollins, a notary public from
Tuscaloosa, testified that he h"d k;;;;';;
appellant nine or ten years. Mr. Rollins
was shown s€veral of the thirty_rir" U"ilotJhe notarized on Septembe" 23, fgZA ir'-ii,office in Tugcaloosa. AII of these ballots
had not been signed in his prneeen* ;;J;;was not penonally acquainted with those
f1o* who had siSned. Mr. Roilins statedrnat appellant, Julia Wilder and two other
Iadies brought the ballots to fris off;;,;i
werc peeent when he notarized them. H;further teEtified ttrat he hrd t lk;';;;
the appellant about notarizing the ballots.

_ 
On crus.€xamination, Mr. Rollins at&t€d

lh",,.l* advised the appeltant, M.. Wlil;;aro the otJrer two ladies that the per.sons
rigning tlre baltotg werc ruppoeed to be in

Mrs. Fronnie B. Rice t€stified tJtat ehevoted absentee in the Democrati. pri;;
Run-off Election, and that r,". "oofi*itiand ballot came in the mail. d;;;that ehe marked her ..X,E,, without ;;r:
:l* lld then signed her name 

"" til;;i_ll.l. M^, Rice gave her balot ; il;Wilder. She did not know p"rt C.-R;;;
. Ninety-three-year_old lpu Sommer"r,ille
tertified that she was a registerea vote" lnP.,:k:ry County and that Jufi" Wifa"r'""-

iruilJ:"#'ilf#T,r,mlil,"::Mrs. Sommerville gtsted that she O,;;;;ballot in the box at the poile. fi;:-S";_
mervitte ineisted that Julia Wifa". inJi""daughtcr wene the only pensons ;;;;ever assisted her in voting 

"Uuent"", 
inJghe made her own ,.X" m;k.--t;S";:

merville did not know paul C. Roilins.
Sophia Spann, whoe€ 8bE€ntee bsilot wasnotarized by paul Rollins at the appellanti



170 Ala. rOI SOUTHEBN BEPORTER, 2d SERIES

rcqueat, testified that she always voted in

Cochran, Alabama, and that she had never

voted in Aliceville. Ms. Spann gtated that
she had never voted an abeent€e ballot, but

that the appellant had come to her house

and had talked to her about it' She had

known the appellant all her life' On the

occasion the appellant talked with Ms'

Spann, Ms. Spann t€stified that the follow-

ing convertation occurred:
;She lust asked me because my husband

was sick. And she asked me did I want

her to vote for me. And I wouldn't have

had to come over to Aliceville'

"I said, 'maybe. I don't have to go to
Aliceville. I votes in Cochran'' I haven't

voted in Aliceville in my life' I votes

here. Just started to voting right in
Cochran. That's all I vote'" [Em-
phasis added.l

Ms. Spann denied ever making applica-

tion for an absentee ballot, or to having

ever signed her name to one' See W'r'lder'

supra, and the attached aPPendix'

On cross-examination, Ms' Spann testi-

fied that she knew Julia Wilder, but "I
don't know her nothing like I do Maggie'"

She denied that Julia lYilder had ever been

to her house and further denied ever having

discussed voting with her on any occasion

and said, "I don't know anything about

that."
Ms. Spann t€stified that the appellant

t^Blked to her before voting time' "She

thought I had to come to Aliceville and she

*r" -h"lping rn". And I told her I didn't

have to go to Aliceville, I votes in Cochran'

and I didn't need the help'" Ms' Spann

next testified that when ahe went to Coch-

ran to vote, I voting official told her she

had aheady voted in Aliceville; "Somebody

had voted for me over at the Alice-

ville. ..."
From the recond:

'Q. A question like that came uP?

'A. Yes, sir. When I walked in, Mtt'
Charlene said, therc's mY mama' How

oome you so late? . . . ' So, she Eaid'

'well, ihat's alt right. Somebody done

votd for you over at the Alieville,' and

ahe showed it to me. And she asked me

did I know that rvriting' I didn't know

that writing.
'Q. Now, who told You that?

'A. The lady down at Cochran, the lady,

Mrs. Charlene, Mr. Hardy Baldwin's wife'

"Q. Did she tell You how she come to

know that You had votcd?

'A. It was in the box at Cochran' The

paper was in the box and he [sic] got it
anh showed it to me and asked me did I
know that handwriting. I didn't know it'
That's all of it." [Emphasis added']

Mrs. Lucille Harris' testimony was sub-

stantially the same as her t€stimony in WiI-

der, supra.

At the conclusion of Mrs. Harris'testimo-
ny the State rested its case and appellant's

motions to exclude werne denied' The de-

fense did not present a case. Closing argu-

ments were had and the trial court prcperly

charged the jury as to the law, there being

no exceptions taken.

I.

Section ll?.lEt-L, Code of Alabama 19?5,

is constitutional. ITiIder, supra'

II.
The indictment in this case, which is iden-

tical in pertinent part to the indictment in

Wilder,supra is constitutionally valid' Wil-

der, supra.

III'
tf-51 The evidence, although circum-

stantial to a large degree and confueing in

Eeversl instances, was sufficient to support

the jury's verdict' trn rcviewing the suffi-

ciency of circumstantial evidence tlre test to

be applied is "'whether the jury might rea-

*n"Uty find that the evidence excluded ev'

ery neasonable hypothesis except that of

guilt; not whether such evidence excludes

"r"ry 
,-"ronable hypothesis but guilt, but

whether a jury might reasonably so con'

clude. (Citations omitted)."' Dolvin v'

State,891 So.fi 13i!, 18? (A1a.1980); Cumbo

v. stztc,868 so.zd 8?1, 87{ (Ala.cr.App'

19?8), cert. denied, 868 So.2d 871 (Ala'1979)'

{
t'

t
I
i
,
$fi
I
tf
,,



;ing. I didn't know

fou that?
tt Cochran, the lady,
ttdy Baldwin's wife.
r how ahe come to
rted?

,x at C,,ochran. The
and he [sicJ got it

and asked me did I
g. I didn't know it.
rphasis sdded.J

estimony was sub,.
rr testimony in Wil-

.rs. Harris'testimc.
ase and appellant's
r denied. The de-
ase. Closing argu-
Lrial court properly
re law, there being

of Alabama l9?b,
, Eupra.

ase, which is iden-
the indictment in
onally valid. Wil-

rlthough circum-
and confusing in

ficient to aupport
'iewing the suffi-
'idence the test to
e jury might rea-
:nce excluded ev-
r except that of
rvidence excludes
rie but guilt, but
asonably Eo con-
l).'" Dolvin v.

'la-1980); Cumb
3?rl (Ala.Cr.App.
d a77 (Ala.r9?9).

On review, this court ia required to consider
the evidence in the light moet favoreble to
the pruoecution. Mchd v. State, g?8

*.?i DA (Ala.Cr.App.l979); hleman v.

Statc,87 Ala.App. 406, 69 So.zd ,l8f (1954).
This court must take the evidence favorable
to the proeecution as true, and accord to the
Stste 8ll legitimate inferences therefiom.
Johngon v. Statc, 878 So.2d 1164 (AIa.Cr.
App.), cert. denied, 378 So.2d ft?B (Ala.
1979). Circumstsntial evidence must be ac-
corded the ssme weight as dinect evidence
when it points to the accused as the guilty
party. Lor,ke v. State, 8S8 So.Zt a88 (Ala.
Cr.App.f976). The truthfulness of the tes-
timony was for the triers of fact. May v.
St8re, 885 *.Zl ?A2 (Ala.Cr.App.t9?6).

t6] Thercforc, we conclude, after ac-
cording the verdict all reasonable presump
tion of comectness, that the evidence was
sufficient to support the verdict. We arc
convinced that the verdict was not wnong or
unjust and was not patently against the
weight of the evidence. Bndges v. State,
%4 lia. 412, iPS Sozd 821 (1909).

IV_

t?l There is no merit to appellant's final
argument that her constitutional rights
were violated when the State used its per-
emptory strikes to exclude all blacks fnom
the jury venirc. This guestion was defini-
tively answercd in Swarn v. Alabama, *0
u.s. z)2, 85 s.ct. 8?A, tg L.Ed.?J 759
(f965); Thigpn v. Statr., {9 Ala.App. 2Bi},
2|10 So2d 666; Carpntcr v. Stl,te, 4U
Sozd 89 (Ala.Cr.App.r980).

We have searched the record for emor
prejudicial to appellant and have found
none, thercfore, the judgment of conviction
by the Pickens Circuit Court ie affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

AII the Judges @ncur.

HANDLEY v. CITY OF MONTGOMERY
Clt .+Ab.Cr.A!lF,llot So.2d t7t

Ala. l7l

Er parte Mrggic BOZEMAI\I.

(rc Mrgie S. Bozeman

v.

Statc of fhbrmr).
80'53&

Suprneme Court of Alabama.

July 24, 1981.

Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Ap
peals,40l So.2d f6?.

BEATTY, Justiee.

WRIT DENIED_NO OPINION.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES
and SHORES, JJ., concur.

Roger HANDLEY ct rL
v.

CITY OF MONT\GOMERY.

3 Dlv. 195.

Court of Criminal Appeale of dabama.

March 81, 1981.

Rehearing Denied May 6, lg8l.

Defendants werp convicted before tlre
Circuit Court, Mont4omery County, Jaeph
D. Phelpe, J., of unlawful asaembly and
parading without permit, and t}ey eppeal-
ed. The Court of Criminal Appeals, Mar-
lo, J., held that: (l) article of city traffic
code requiring permit for paradea and prc-
cesgions was valid on its face and did not
constitute an impermissibte prior rstraint
of Fint Amendment frcedoma; (2) article
was not unconstitutionally applied qgainst
Ku Klux Khnsmen arr.estcd for demon-



t rzt,' 
^ 
! - tff"u""L7 

^ 
fuJ;-*l'W r 

,,,',i T***ffo \ ^fl*n

-L



r---trf-

STATE OF ALABAMA
OFFICE OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36T30

Lani Guinier
AttorneY at Law
99 Hudson Street
16th Floor
New York, NY L0013

l,,,llll,t,ll,,,,,,ll,,ll,tl,ltl