Appeal from Madison Circuit Court. (CC-93-334). Joseph Battle, TRIAL JUDGE.
Rule 39(k) Motion Denied April 14, 1995. Rehearing Denied April 14, 1995. Certiorari Denied July 28, 1995. Released for Publication January 19, 1996.
Taylor, Presiding Judge. All The Judges Concur.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Taylor
The appellant, Harvey Jordan, was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, a violation of § 32-5A-191, Code of Alabama 1975. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail. That sentence was suspended and he was ordered to serve 2 weeks on a work release program.
The city's evidence tended to show that on October 25, 1992, at about 1:00 a.m., the appellant approached a traffic checkpoint in Huntsville. Deputy Billy Wells of the Madison County Sheriff's Department testified that the appellant stopped at the checkpoint and that he asked the appellant for his driver's license. Wells testified that the appellant then "took off." The appellant was forced to stop several blocks from the checkpoint by patrol cars from the Madison County Sheriff's Department, the Huntsville Police Department, and the Alabama State Trooper's office. Wells testified that when the officers stopped him, the appellant was belligerent and appeared to be intoxicated. He refused to undergo any field sobriety tests. The appellant was arrested by Huntsville Police Officer Tim Evans, but he refused to undergo any chemical tests to measure his blood alcohol content. The appellant raises four issues on appeal.
The appellant first contends that the trial court erred in not allowing the appellant to cross-examine Officer Evans concerning acts or events leading to Evans's suspension from the police department.
"It is not permissible in Alabama to prove the good or bad character of either a defendant or a witness to fortify or impeach his testimony by proving particular acts. Lowery v. State, 98 Ala. 45, 13 So. 498 (1893); Carroll v. State, 555 So. 2d 805 (Ala. Cr. App. 1989).
"The rule in Alabama is stated as follows:
"'A witness may not be cross-examined for impeachment as to specific acts of misconduct by him which have no relevancy except as tending to show that he is a person of bad character as a whole or with respect to truth and veracity....
"'This rule of excluding questions on cross about specific bad acts of the witness does not apply to exclude prior criminal acts involving moral turpitude for ...