Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; October 25, 1991; Alabama; State Appellate Court
Joel Mayfield was convicted of third-degree assault and disorderly conduct, receiving a 12-month jail sentence for the assault and a concurrent 30-day jail sentence plus a $500 fine for disorderly conduct. The incident occurred on November 20, 1990, when a dispute over money between Mayfield and the victim, Ronald Wright, escalated into a physical altercation. Mayfield rear-ended Wright's truck, pinned him between the vehicles, and struck his head multiple times before fleeing the scene. Wright managed to seek police assistance after sustaining injuries.
During the trial, the prosecution presented witness testimony regarding Mayfield’s reputation for truthfulness in the community, which Mayfield contested on appeal, arguing that the foundation for this testimony was insufficient. The defense objected to the testimonies of two police officers who characterized Mayfield's reputation as bad, citing a lack of proper predicate for their opinions. The trial court overruled the objections, allowing the testimonies to stand. The state contends that the issue may not be preserved for appeal due to the defense's failure to make a specific objection during the trial.
The objection of "improper predicate" effectively alerted the trial court to the concerns raised regarding the prosecutor's impeachment of the appellant using prior convictions. The term "predicate" is understood in legal context as the foundational basis for admitting evidence. Generally, character evidence against a defendant is inadmissible unless the defendant testifies, thereby placing their character at issue, allowing the prosecution to challenge their credibility. In this case, sufficient foundation was established when witnesses confirmed their knowledge of the appellant's reputation in the community.
The appellant also contended that the trial court improperly limited his cross-examination of the victim, Ronald Wright, concerning Wright's prior D.U.I. convictions. However, the trial court's decision to exclude this evidence was deemed harmless as it was cumulative; Wright had already admitted to other traffic violations. The trial court acted within its discretion in this matter.
Lastly, the appellant argued insufficient evidence supported his conviction for disorderly conduct under Alabama law. The statute outlines behaviors constituting disorderly conduct, which include creating public disturbance or threatening behavior. Testimony from witness Tammy Adams indicated the appellant engaged in belligerent conduct, supporting a jury's determination of guilt. The court affirmed the conviction, with all judges concurring.
