# Appendix — Moore v. Alabama

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_2052%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1985
- **Citation:** 470 U.S. 1053

## Text

—
84-1199 , FI

No. i seees | WAN Le SIU

‘ py . XA? . oy
eeeeseeseeereeseeeeseeereeneeeoeneeeeeeneteeepztpteeeeeeee@eeee

meow -——

In The
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1984

JAYNE KING MOORE, Petitioner
V.

STATE OF ALABAMA, Respondent

APPENDIX
TO

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
To The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

A:TRIAL COURT ORDER

B:APPEALS COURT OPINION

C:APPEALS COURT REHEARING DENIAL
D:ALABAMA SUPREME COURT DENIAL OF WRIT

JAYNE KING MOORE, pro se
Attorney for herself

P.O. BOX 5071
Montgomery, Alabama 36103
205 / 262-7381 (days)

APPENDIX A

HANDWRITTEN BY THE COURT: At the
conclusion of the State's case, the
Defendant moved for a judgment of
acquittal; and for a directed verdict,
and to exclude the State's evidence,
separately and severally, and as grounds
therefor, the defendant states separately
and severally that the State has failed
to prove a prima facie case; that the
State has failed to prove that the
defendant ever had any contact with the
drugs set forth in the indictment; the
State failed to prove the defendant had
any contact whatsoever with the trailer
Or with the other buildings wherein the
drugs set forth in the indictment were
found.

ORDER

There is an abundance of evidence
that drugs, drug paraphenal:a and
literature were found in a house trailer

and an outbuilding at a trailer in

-_

ST AVAILABLE COPY
ee

Sellers Station, Montgmery County,
Alabama. The evidence showed that the
defendant acknowledged to the arresting
officer or some of them that this was, in
fact, her residence; the evidence shows
that the defendant's husband lived in the
trailer also; the defendant brought out
that the defendant's husbanco had been
convicted of possession of the drugs in
question. In the opinion of the Court,
the question of possession, a
constructive possession, is one for the
Jury.

Motions are therefore overruled.

Signed: Joseph Phelps, Judge.

(Record, 153-54)

leeks tel AIRE eae Oe 508

ned ran

Th NY ED OS 8 to

APPENDIX B
STATE OF ALABAMA-JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
THE ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 1983-84
3 Div. 914
Jayne King Moore, alias
Vv.
State

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court

TYSON, JUDGE
Jayne King Moore was indicted for

violation of the Alabama Un:.form
Controlled Substances Act, { 20-2-1, et.
seq., Code of Alabama 1975. In the first
count of the three-count indictment,
appellant was charged with she unlawful
possession of cocaine. The second count
of the indictment charged the appellant
with the unlawful possession Diazepam,
and the third count charged her with the
unlawful possession of marijuana. the

jury found the appellant "guilty as

on Fine

charged in the indictment" and after a
sentencing hearing she was sentenced to
ten years' imprisonment.

On the afternoon July 21, 1982,
members of the Montgomery City Police
Department, the Montgomery Country
Sheriff's Department, the District
Attorney's office, and the Alabama Bureau
of Investigation executed a search
warrant for a mobile home and
out-buildings in Lapine, Alabama. The
search warrant was the result of an
undercover operation which was being
carried on in Montgomery County. The
mobile home and out-buildings were
allegedly owned by Tim and Jayne Moore.

Officer Dennis Bodine ot the
Montgomery Police Department testified
that, upon arrival at the residence of
Tim and Jayne Moore, he observed the
appellant and her husband working on a
fence near their mobile home. He stated

that a flatbed truck was parked near the

ansr

a

fence, where the appellant and her
husband were standing. He stated that,
as the officers entered the property of
the appellant, she jumped on a ten speed
bicycle and began heading tcwards the
mobile home. He also statec that the
appellant's husband started running
towards the residence. He stated that
the appellant and her husband were
stopped before they reached the residence
and placed in custody.

Officer Bodine testifiec: that police
officers and other law enforcement
officials then executed the search
warrant. He stated that entry was made
into the residence and a large amount of
illegal drugs and paraphena.ia were found
in the mobile home. He stated that
several bags of marijuana were found in a
brown box on the kitchen counter and he
identified such items. He further
identified a large number o£ other items

found in the home and outbuildings. Such

ote

VAILABLE COPY

items were (1) a plastic bag containing
white tablets, found in the front bedroom
of the home; (2) two plastic bags of
white powder, found in the front bedroom
of the home; (3) two more plastic bags
containing white tablets, found in the
front bedroom on a counter top; (4) a
plastic bag containing a brown substance,
found in the front bedroom counter top;
(5) a small green box containing
marijuana and a white powder, found in
the bedroom; (6) a small piece of tin
foil with a brown substance wrapped
inside, found in closet of bedroom; (7) a
bottle of Lactose, found on the counter
top in the front bedroom; (8) a small
blue dispenser with a white powder
inside, found on the front seat of the
flatbed truck; and (9) a plastic bag with
marijuana in it, found in an outbuilding.
He stated that he kept each of these
items in his control until he turned them

over to Allen Adair at the State

~

————

Department of Forensic Sciences. He
stated that these items were tested and
returned to him, where they were placed
in the drug evidence room of the
Montgomery Police Department.

Officer Bodine further testified that
a number of other items were found during
the search. Such items were (1) a set of
counter weights for a scale, found in
front bedroom; (2) a brown vinyl carrying
case with a set of scales, ftound on
bathroom counter; (3) a blue porcelain
water pipe, with a residue in it, found
in the closet of front bedroom; (4) a
magazine with an article on growing
marijuana in it, a Xerox copy of a book
entitled “Drug Manufacturing for Fun and
Profit," a pamphlet entitled "The
Marijuana Consumers and Dealers Guide", a
book entitled the "Cocaine Handbook," and
a "Fall Harvest Guide," all found in a
Gesk in the living room of the home; (5)

a field testing kit; (6) a locker

~

AVAILABLE COPY

containing laboratory glassware which had
residue in it, found in an outbuilding;
and (7) a box containing a kook entitled

"Marijuana Grower's Guide," a glass jar
with residue inside, a "Deering" sifter
used for mixing cocaine, found in the
front bedroom.

He stated on cross-examination, when
questioned as to why he believed the
mobile home to be a residence, that there
were clothes in the closets, there were
food items in the cabinets énd deep
freeze.

Allen Adair testified that he was
employed as a toxicologist with the STate
Department of Forensic Science. He
stated that he did an analysis on a
number of items turned over to him by
Officer Dennis Bodine. He stated that he
tested six plastic bags containing plant
material, which were located in a brown
box. He stated that these contained

marijuana. He stated that he tested

five

P BEST AVAL

white powder found in a plastic bag and
that such powder was Dextrose - a cutting
agent for various drugs. He stated that
he tested a plant material ina bic glass
jar and it was marijuana. He stated that
he tested 508 white tablets and these
tablets were identified as Diazepam - a
tranquilizer drug. He stated that he
tested two plastic bags containing a
white powder and this powder was cocaine.
He stated that he tested several more
clear plastic bags containing white
tablets and these tablets were Diazepam.
Mr. Adair further testified that he
tested a brown jar containing a white
powder and this powder was Lactose - a
growth sugar. He tested a plastic bag
containing a brown substance and this
substance was identified as hashish. He
stated that he tested a plant material
and a white powder located in a green box
and these substances were identitied as

marijuana and cocaine. He stated that he

-9«

tested a brown substance found wrapped in
a small piece of tin foil and this
substance was hashish. He tested a blue
container which had a white powder in it
and this powder was cocaine. He tested a
green plant material found in a clear
plastic bag and this material was
marijuana. He also tested two more bags
which contained plant material and this
was identified as marijuana.

W. J. Walker testified that he was
employed by the Montgomery County
Sheriff's Department and thet he was
present when the search was conducted on
July 21, 1982. He stated that he found a
brown box on the kitchen counter which
contained a number of bags with a plant
material in them. He statec) that he
turned this evidence over to Officer
Bodine. He further stated that he had
been informed that the mobile home was
the residence of Tim and Jayne Moore.

On cross-exanmination, he stated that

ntl Geo

he observed women's clothinc in the
closet of a bedroom in the nobile home.

William Rhegness testified that he
was a narcotics agent employed by the
Alabama Bureau of Investigation. He
stated that he was involved in the search
of the appellant's residence on July 21,
1982. He stated that he recovered a
small piece of tin foil, which had a
brown substance inside it, from a shelf
in a closet in the front bedroom. He
stated that he found a water pipe,
designed for smoking marijuana or
hashish, in the same place he discovered
the tin foil. He stated that he turned

| both of these items over to Officer
Bodine.

On cross-examnation, he stated that
the appellant admitted to him that she
lived in the mobile home. He
specifically stated that he "recallled]
asking her name and if she lived there

and she told me and affirmed yes she

-lj-

i

lived there."

B.G. Bryant testified that he was
employed by the District Attorney's
office. He stated that he was present
during the search of the appellant's
residence. He stated that previous to
this search, during the course of his
investigation, he looked in the
Montgomery County phone book and observed
that the Moore residence was listed at
the address they ended up searching. He
further stated that he participated in
the search and recovered a blue
container, which had a white powder in
it, from the seat of the flatbed truck.
He stated that he turned this over to
Officer Bodine.

N.W. Ward testified that he was
employed by the Montgomery County
Sheriff's Deprtment. He stated that he
participated in the search of the
appellant's residence and found a number

of items which he turned over to Officer

o} 2~

Bodine. Among the items he recovered
from the front bedroom of the mobile home
were (1) a book entitled "Marijuana
Grower's Guide;" (2) a big glass jar
which had marijuana in it; (3) a bag of
pills; (4) a set of weights for a triple
beam scale; (5) a plastic bag containing
a white powder; (6) a bag of 452 pills
which was in plain view on the counter
top; (7) a bottle of Lactose on top of a
counter; (8) a container with white
powder in it. He also founc a set of
scales in the bathroom on the counter
top. He also searched a desk in the
living room of the mobile home and found
a number of drug related books.

Officer Ward testified that he
noticed a mailbox across the road from
the driveway and this mailbox had "Moore"
on it.

Ken Halford testified that he was
employed by the Alabama Bureau of

Investigation and that he participated in

ai3e

the search of appellant's residence on
July 21, 1982. He testified that he
found women's lingerie in the mobile
home. He also testified that he found a
greenhouse setup in an eighteen wheel-
trailer, which was located beside the
mobile home. He further stated that one
Bob Robertson - a suspect in the drug
investigation - told him that Tim and
Jayne Moore lived in the mokile home.

The State rested its case at this
point and the appellant moved for a
judgment of acquittal and tc exclude the
State's evidence.

I

The appellant contends that the trial
court erred in overruling his [sic]
motion to exclude because the State
failed to prove a prima facie case.

In considering the question of
whether the trial judge properly
overruled that motion, we can only

consider that evidence which was before

«igo

7 as

etree

the trial judge at the time the motion to
exclude was made. Williams v. State, 340
So.2d 1144 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert
denied, 340 So.2d 1149 (Ala. 1976).

For unlawful possession of a
controlled substance, it is not necessary
to prove manucaption, but constructive
possession may be shown, anc where such
possession is relied upon, the State must
also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused knew of the presence of a
prohibited substance. Riggirs v, State,

, 437 So.2d 631 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983);
) Jones v. State, 432 So.2d 5 (Ala. Crim.

App. 1983); Yarbrough v. State, 405 So.2d
721 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 405

So.2d 725 (Ala. 1981); _Green yv, State,
384 So.2d 1215 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980);
_McHellen v. State, 351 So.2d 689 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1977); Daniels v. State, 49
Ala. App. 654, 275 So.2d 169 (1973).

: Guilty knowledge of the presence of the

illegal substance may be established by

ak Ge

AVAILABLE COPY

circumstantial evidence. Jones v. State,
Supra; Yarbrough v. State supra; Mitchel).
vy. State, 395 So.2d 124 (Ala. Crim. App.
1980), cert denied, 395 So.2d 127 (Ala.
1981); Green v. State, supra; McHellen v.
State, supra; Henderson v. State, 347
So.2d 540 (Ala. Crim. App.), writ
quashed, 347 So.2d 547 (Ala. 1977); Parks
vy. State, 46 Ala. App. 722, 248 So.2d 761
(1971). Since the possessicn of illegal
drugs is susceptible of joirt commission,
the guilt of the accused does not
necessariliy depend upon proof of her
ownership of the drugs. Mitchell v.
State, supra; McCord vy. State, 373 So.2d
1242 (Ala. Crim. App. 1979); Henderson v.
State, supra; Holley v. State 447 So.2d
829 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983).

"While mere proximity to contraband
is not enough to establish constructive
possession, where other circumstantial
evidence ... is sufficiently

probative,proximity to contraband with

as

~16-

inferred knowledge of its presence will

nana RR

Support a finding of guilt on such

charges" German v. State, 429 So.2d 1138
(Ala. Crim. App. 1982); United States v.
Whitmire, 595 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir. 1979).

When the presence of the accused at the
scene is established and evidence of his
knowledge of the presence of the illegal

substance is shown - even by

circumstantial evidence- along with any
other incriminating evidence, the issue
of the appellant's guilt should be

| submitted to the jury. Riggins v. State,
| 437 So.2d 631 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983),

: German v. State, supra; Coilier v.
State, 413 So.2d 396 (Ala. Crim. App.
1981), affirmed, 413 So.2d 403 (Ala.
1982); _Radke v State, 292 Ala. 290, 293
So.2d 314 (1974). "If presence at the

time and place a crime is committed, in

conjunction with other facts and

circumstances tend to connect the accused

with the commission of the crime, then

si P-

AVAILABLE COPY

the jury may find the accused guilty”
German v. State, supra;
Dolvin v. State 319 So.2d 133 (Ala.
1980).

In this case there is no argument
with the proposition that where drugs
were found on the premises under control
of the appellant an inference may arise
that the appellant had knowledge and
possession of them. The particular
difficulty in this case is whether there
was sufficient evidence of the
appellant's control of the premises to
authorize an inference of her knowledge
and constructive possession of the drugs
found on those premises. The appellant
argues that evidence of control was
insufficient because there was no
evidence that she was ever physically
present in the mobile home. A thorough
review of the evidence in this case, and
the authorities on this point, danitiaiiiid

us that this was a question for the jury

«2 Ba

CIERRA TRE RO

in this case. "Where, as here, the
presence of the accused at the scene is
established by both direct and
circumstantial evidence, and the evidence
of the accused's knowledge of the
presence of the prohibited substance is

shown together with other incriminating

iS PRS CA ALO gs

evidence, the issue of the defendant's
guilt should be submitted to the jury."
Henderson v. State, 347 So.2d 540 (Ala.
Crim. App.), writ quashed, 347 So.2d 547

(Ala. 1977); Fields v. State, 333 So.2d
861 (Ala. Crim. App. 1976). Moreover, a

wan Reel BO ae eta ii! Mile ak Silihe sec

showing that there is a reasonable
probability of unlawful possession of
narcotics by someone is sufficient to
establish the corpus delect: of the crime
of possession. It is not necessary to
prove the accused's connect:on with the
drugs to prove the corpus delecti.

Lafitte v. State, 370 So.2d 1108 (Ala.
Crim. App.), cert. denied, 370 So.2d 1111

(Ala. 1979); Reynolds v. State, 346

aD.

AVAILABLE COPY

So.2d979 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied,
346 So.2d 986 (Ala. 1977).

The appellant further argues that her
admission of living at the trailer was in
violation of her Miranda richts. This
testimony was elicited by appellant's own
counsel during cross-examination of
Officer Rhegness and was not objected to
Guring trial. As a result, such argument
has not been preserved for our review.
This court may only review rulings of the
trial court that are adverse to the
appellant. Moreover, error cannot be
predicated upon admission of testimony
which is elicited by defense counsel and
is responsive to defense questions.
Williams v. State, 383 So.2d 547 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1979), affirmed, 383 So.2d 564
(Ala. 1980), cert. denied 449 U.S. 995,
101 S.Ct. 534, 66 L.Ed.2d 293 (1980).

A review of the evidence in this case
reveals that the trial judge did not err

in overruling the appellant's motion to

~~)

Een: pisblisawatirec ovina

exclude the State's evidence.
II

The appellant contencs that the trial
court erred in allowing the prosecutor to
proceed in a manner that was prejudicial
to her.

In her brief the appellant notes a
large number of instances wrere the
prosecutor made comments or asked
questions and she contends ¢uch questions
and comments were prejudiciél to her.

She also argues that several] comments
made by the prosecutor durirg opening and
closing statements were improper and
prejudicial. It should be noted that the
appellant's trial counsel did not object
to a number of the questions she claims
were prejudicial and, while he did object
to several other questions and comments,
he did not invoke a ruling by the trial
court. As regards appellant's complaint
about improper closing argument, we have

carefully examined such argument and find

of} «

ST AVAILABLE COPY

the appellant's contention to be without
merit. While in argument to ie Sum,
counsel may not argue as a fact that
which is not in evidence, nevertheless he
may state or comment on proper inferences
from the evidence and may draw
conclusions from the evidence based upon
his own reasoning. Sanders v State, 433
So.2d 348 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982);
Speigner v State, 369 So.2d 39 (Ala.
Crim. App.), cert. denied, 369 So.2d 46
(Ala. 1979); Liner v State 350 So.2d 760
(Ala. Crin. App. 1977). The prosecutor,
as does defense counsel, has a right to
present his impressions from the
evidence. Sanders v State, supra; Hayes v
State, 395 So.2d 127 (Ala. Crim. App.
1980), cert. denied, 395 So.2d 150 (Ala.
1981); McQueen vy State, 355 So.2d 407
(Ala. Crim. App. 1978). He may argue
every legitimate inference and may

examine, collate, shift and treat the

evidence in his own way. Sanders y State,

~2%«

Supra; Hayes vy State, supra; _McQueen v
State, supra.

Furthermore, in this case appellant's
counsel did not object to any of the
statements relied upon by appellant.
"Generally, improper argument is not a
valid ground for motion for a new trial
or subject to review on appeal, unless
there is timely and specific objection by
counsel or motion to exclude, an adverse
ruling thereon by the trial court, or
refusal of the trial court to make a
ruling, and an objection thereto." Thomas
y State, 440 So.2d 1216 (Alz. Crim. App.
1983); Trawick v State, 431 So.2d 574
(Ala. Crim. App. 1983); Lawson vy State,
377 So.2d 1115 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert.
denied, 377 So.2d 1121 (Ala. 1979).

We have carefully reviewed the
questions and comments of the prosecutor
during the trial of the case. As stated
above, the complained of questions were

not objected to at the trial level, or

o23~

SO

there was no ruling invoked by the
appellant's counsel. Our review on
appeal is limited to maters on which
rulings have been invoked at trial court.
Robinson v State, 441 So.2d 1045 (Ala.

Crim. App. 1983); Cowgill v State, 426
So.2d 517 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982); Whorton

y State, 422 So.2d 812 (Ala. Crim. App.
1982); Wood v State, 416 So.2d 794 (Ala. |
Crim. App. 1982); Parker v State, 406 |
So.2d 1036 (Ala. Crim. App.’), cert. :
denied, 406 So.2d 1041 (Ala. 1961).
Moreover, in the absence of a ruling, a
request for a ruling, or an objection to
the court's failure to rule , there is
nothing preserved for appellate review.
Stewart v State, 398 So.2d 369 (Ala.
Crim. App.), cert. denied, 398 So.2d 376

ay ere

(Ala. 1981); Magro vy State, 384 So.2d 871
(Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied 384 So.2d

875 (Ala. 1979); Cook vy State, 369 So.2d
1251 (Ala. 1979). The trial court did

not err on this point.

«Div

IIl

The appellant argues that the trial
court erred in overruling her motion for
a new trial and assigns several reasons
therefor.

A

She argues that the trial court erred
in failing to exclude the items which
were seized from the residerce.

The Alabama Supreme Court has held
that the admission of various items of
drug “paraphenalia" is permissible in
order for the State to show the complete
story. Furthermore, evidence of other
drugs and paraphenalia seized in the
search of defendant's home, but not
encompassed in the charge ayainst the
defendant, is admissible to show the

whole story. Beasley v State, 408 So.2d
173 (Ala. Crim. App. 1981), cert. denied,

408 So.2d 180 (Ala. 1982); Casey v State,
406 So.2d 1029 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert

denied, 406 So.2d 1036 (Ala. 1981); Reed

|

vy State, 401 So.2d 131 (Ala. Crim. App.),
cert denied, 401 So.2d 139 (Ala. 1981);
Green y State, supra; McHellen vy State,
Supra; Brantley vy State, 55 Ala. App.
493, 317 So.2d 337 (1974), reversed, 294
Ala. 344, 317 So.2d 345 (1975), on

~ remand, 55 Ala. App. 717, 317 So2d 347,
cert. denied, 294 Ala. 346, 317 So.2d 348
(1975).

In this case the officers were
searching under a valid search warrant
and the execution of such wérrarnt was
proper. Under these circumstances the
evidence seized was admissible as
evidence of the crime for which the
appellant was convicted. See Baty yv
State, supra. Moreover, the State
properly showed a complete chain of
custody for each item seized and entered
into evidence. See Sturdivant v State,
439 So.2d 184 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983);
Riggins v State, 437 So.2d 631 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1983); Luster v State, 433

f -26-

So.2d 481 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983); Congo v
State, 409 So.2d 475 (Ala. Crim. App.
1981), cert. denied, 412 So.2d 276 (Ala.

1982); Holley v State 447 So.2d 829 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1983).

B

The appellant further argues that the
trial court should have grarted her a new
trial because the jury returned a general
verdict which did not refer to any
specific controlled substance for which
she was charged with possessing. She was
charged in a three count indictment with
the possession of three separate drugs.
It is the rule in Alabama that a general
verdict of guilty on a multiple count
indictment is valid where the evidence
would sustain the verdict of guilty under
one or more counts and the sentence
imposed is no greater than could have
been imposed on any one of the counts.
In this case the evidence was sufficient

to find a verdict of guilty on each count

-

in the indictment. Furthermore, the
appellant was sentenced well within the
limits for the offense.
Cc

The appellant also contends that the
trial court should have concucted a
perjury hearing as to a particular
State's witness and failure to do so was
error. She contends that ske never made
a statement to Officer Rhegress, or to
anyone, about living in the mobile home.

In order to obtain a new trial on the
basis of the use of perjurec testimony by
the State, a defendant must allege and
prove (1) that the testimony was
perjured; (2) that it was on a matter of
such importance that the truth would have
prevented a conviction; (3) that the
State had knowledge that the testimony
was perjured; and (4) that the defendant
was not negligent in discovering the

falsehood and in raising the issue.

Waldrop v State, 448 So.2d 490 (Ala.

-28-

Crim. app. 1984); Phelps v State, 439
So.2d 727 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983);
Pennington v State, 420 So.2d 845 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1982); Barnes vy State, 415
So.2d 1217 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982);
Summers vy State, 366 So.2d 336 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1978), cert. denied , 366
So.2d 346 (Ala. 1979). In the present
case the appellant failed to satisfy this
burden of proof. The trial court did not
err in denying the motion for new trial
on this point.

Moreover, a decision on a motion for
a new trial rests largely within the
discretion of the trial court, and, in
reviewing such a decision, the appellate
court will indulge every presumption in
favor of the correctness thereof. Ward v
State, 440 So.2d 1227 (Ala. Crim.App.
1983).

IV
The appellant contends that the trial

court erred in refusing several of her

~29~-

LE COPY &

requested written requested charges.
However, only one of these refused
charges has been preserved for our review
pursuant to Allen vy State, 414 So.2d 989
(Ala. Crim. App. 1981), affirmed, 414
So.2d 993 (Ala. 1982). The appellant's
contention that the trial court
improperly refused the preserved written
requested charge is without merit.
"The refusal of a charge, though a
correct statement of law, shall not
be cause for a reversal if it appears
that the same rule of law was
substantially and fairly given to the
jury in the court's general charge or
in charges given at the request of
the parties.”
Ala. Code 12-16-13 (1975). See Campbell
y State, 423 So.2d 284 (Ala. Crim. App.
1982); Lambeth v State, 380 So.2d 923
(Ala. 1979); Williams v State, [Ms. 8

Div. 940, January 31, 1984], So.2d

_.. (Ala. Crim. App. 1984).
We have reviewed the refused charge
and find that it was fully covered in the

trial court's oral charge to the jury.

~$@—

Therefore, there is no basis of error to
reversal on this issue.
V

The appellant contends that the trial
court's consideration of a pre-sentence
report on her constituted a denial of due
process because it consisted of "a pack
of lies". She contends that the report
contained false accusations and that her
attorney challenged such report at the
sentencing hearing. This court is bound
by the record and not by allegations or
arguments in brief reciting matters not
disclosed by the record. Eaton v State,
423 So.2d 352 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982);
Harris v State, 420 So.2d 812 ((Ala.
Crim. App. 1982); Hollins v State, 415
So.2d 1249 (Ala. Crim.App 1982). There
is nothing in the record before us which
Supports the claim of the appellant.

The judgment of the trial court is
due to be and is hereby affirmed.

AFFIRMED. All the judges concur.

aSi<

APPENDIX C
THE STATE OF ALABAMA-JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
THE ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OCTOBER TERM, 1983-84
3 Div. 914

Jayne King Moore, alias

Vv.
State

Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court

REHEARING DENIED

August 14, 1984

o~%2e

APPENDIX D
THE STATE OF ALABAMA-JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

—— ame ee we ew ee ee ee ee ie we ee ee we ee ee i i ie

October 19, 1984

83-1333

EX PARTE: JAYNE KING MOORE

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(Re: Jayne King Moore, alias v State)

CRIMINAL APPEALS 3/914

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGMENT

WRIT DENIED

The above cause having been duly
submitted, IT IS CONSIDERED AND ORDERED
that the petition for writ of certiorari
be denied.

Costs taxed to petitioner.

JONES, J. - TORBERT, C.J., SHORES,
EMBRY AND BEATTY, JJ., CONCUR.

«33—

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

J, Jayne Moore, first being duly

ei ete a

sworn, hereby certify that on this the
day of January, 1985, I served a copy
of the foregoing APPENDIX TO

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI on the

State of Alabama, Respondent herein, by
mailing a copy in a duly addressed
envelope, First Class Postage paid,

addressed to:

Charles Graddick, Attorney General
250 Administrative Building

64 North Union Street

Montgomery, Alabama

JAYNE MOORE

Subscribed and affirmed before me
this _. day of January, 1985

NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires

ee ee ee -

atin

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385017_2052%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.