Talley v. State

Citations: 479 So. 2d 1300; 1985 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 4895Docket: 3 Div. 919

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; February 25, 1985; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bernard Talley was indicted for escaping from the custody of Montgomery Police Officer S.A. Eiland, in violation of Alabama Code 13A-10-33. The jury convicted Talley as charged, and after a motion invoking the Habitual Felony Offender Act was filed, it was determined he had two prior felonies, leading to a 10-year prison sentence for third-degree escape. His motions for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial were denied, prompting this appeal.

Judy Robbins, the Court Administrator for Montgomery, testified about her role in maintaining warrant records, explaining that capias warrants are issued for defendants who fail to appear in court. She confirmed that these warrants authorize police officers to arrest individuals with outstanding capiases. Robbins noted that approximately 25,000 source documents were pending in the Municipal Court, which could lead to capias warrants. She affirmed that source documents existed for Talley in March 1982, including three outstanding warrants related to charges of discharging firearms and concealing his identity.

Montgomery Police Officer Stephen Eiland testified that he found three outstanding capiases against Talley when he checked the capias warrant clerk's office on March 3, 1982. He recognized the documents from both that day and the trial proceedings.

On March 3, 1982, officers, including Officer Eiland, responded to information regarding outstanding capias warrants for Bernard Talley. Upon arriving at 110 Mildred Street in Montgomery, Alabama, Eiland recognized Talley standing on the sidewalk. Eiland informed Talley about the warrants and instructed him to turn around to be handcuffed. As Eiland initiated the arrest, Talley fled, prompting a chase by the officers, which was unsuccessful. Officer Whitaker corroborated Eiland’s account, stating that he also identified Talley and attempted to assist in the arrest. 

During the trial, Talley’s defense moved for a directed verdict of acquittal, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause since the alleged misdemeanor was not witnessed by them. The trial court denied this motion but instructed the jury to disregard any evidence related to burglary, focusing solely on the charge of escape. Witness Bernice Whetstone, who lived at the residence, testified that her brother, Bernard Williams (also known as Talley), was present when the officers arrived, and she observed him fleeing. Eiland noted he was in the process of retrieving handcuffs when Talley escaped.

The pursuit of Bernard Talley by officers lasted approximately 15 minutes or three blocks, during which they could not apprehend him. Officer Whitaker confirmed the details of the pursuit and mentioned Officer Lamar's involvement. Talley, who has prior convictions for grand larceny and escape, recounted events from the evening of March 3, 1982, stating he was at his sister's home when police arrived. After initially denying his identity, he was asked to go to the station, refused, and subsequently fled. His brother-in-law, Timothy Whetstone, corroborated Talley's account.

The central issue in the appeal is whether Officers Eiland and his colleagues had probable cause to arrest Talley outside his sister's home. Relevant case law indicates that officers may approach individuals for investigative purposes without probable cause if they can articulate specific facts that warrant such actions. The court referenced several precedents, including *Terry v. Ohio*, which supports the notion of a brief stop for identification when there are reasonable suspicions. It was noted that while mere presence isn't enough for probable cause, it might contribute to a reasonable belief when combined with other circumstances. The officers were aware of three outstanding warrants for Talley at the time of the incident, which factors into the determination of probable cause.

Officer Eiland testified that the appellant was wanted for questioning regarding a burglary felony. Upon confrontation outside his sister’s home, the officers informed the appellant of his status and placed him under arrest due to three outstanding capias warrants. During the arrest, the appellant escaped from the officers. The indictment charged him with third-degree escape, a misdemeanor. The court determined that the officers had established a prima facie case for a lawful arrest based on the appellant's status as a wanted individual and the valid informant's tip, as supported by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Hensley. The court found sufficient probable cause for the arrest based on the officers' testimonies. The appellant contested the introduction of evidence regarding distinct criminal acts, but the trial court had instructed jurors to disregard such evidence, and the jurors confirmed their adherence to this instruction. Consequently, the court overruled the appellant's motion for a mistrial. After reviewing the record, the court found no errors, affirming the judgment. All judges concurred in the decision.