Tony C. Williams v. Dorothy O. Harris
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL
06/17/2011
Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance
s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s ,
A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1
((334)
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made
b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
2100283
Tony C. W i l l i a m s
v.
Dorothy O. H a r r i s
Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court
(DR-10-3462)
THOMAS, J u d g e .
Tony
order
C. W i l l i a m s
entered
appeals
by t h e Madison
from a p e t i t i o n
filed
from
a
Circuit
protection-from-abuse
Court,
which
b y D o r o t h y O. H a r r i s p u r s u a n t
resulted
to the
2100283
Protection
We
f r o m Abuse A c t , A l a . Code
1975, § 30-5-1 e t s e q .
affirm.
Facts
Williams
and P r o c e d u r a l
and H a r r i s
History
are married.
On November
9,
2010,
H a r r i s f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r p r o t e c t i o n f r o m abuse i n t h e t r i a l
court.
2010,
I n her p e t i t i o n , H a r r i s
Williams
that
on November
h a d p u s h e d h e r down on c o n c r e t e ,
s u s t a i n b r u i s i n g and s c r a t c h e s
Further,
stated
Harris
stated
causing
8,
her to
on h e r arms, l e g s , and b u t t o c k .
i n her p e t i t i o n that
y e l l e d a t h e r , had c a l l e d her c r a z y ,
Williams
had
and h a d p u s h e d h e r .
On
t h e same d a y t h a t H a r r i s f i l e d h e r p e t i t i o n , November
9, 2010,
the
Williams
trial
court
e n t e r e d an e x p a r t e
order d i r e c t i n g
t o be removed f r o m t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e ,
custody
of the p a r t i e s ' c h i l d r e n
hearing
on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r November
The
c o u p l e had been m a r r i e d
awarding
to Harris,
and
f o r years,
but during
l u p u s and h a s s u f f e r e d f r o m s e r i o u s h e a l t h i s s u e s .
resulting
residence
and
Harris
had
i n the p o l i c e
recently
having
on numerous o c c a s i o n s .
2
setting
a
15, 2010.
2010 t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p h a d begun t o d e t e r i o r a t e .
Williams
temporary
had
been
constant
Harris
late
has
Moreover,
arguments,
c a l l e d to the
marital
H a r r i s had changed t h e l o c k s
2100283
on t h e m a r i t a l r e s i d e n c e
o f t h e home.
t w i c e i n o r d e r t o keep W i l l i a m s o u t
Due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p o l i c e h a d b e e n
called
r e g a r d i n g H a r r i s ' s changing o f t h e l o c k s , W i l l i a m s and H a r r i s
had
agreed
to a special
residence.
The
downstairs
arrangement
arrangement
t o share
Williams
allowed
the m a r i t a l
use o f t h e
p o r t i o n of the m a r i t a l residence, while reserving
the u p s t a i r s p o r t i o n f o r H a r r i s ' s use.
and
laundry
Harris
area
to enter
were
located
the downstairs
However, t h e k i t c h e n
downstairs,
level
which
from time
required
t o time.
On
November 8, 2010, t h e p a r t i e s h a d an a l t e r c a t i o n , w h i c h l e d t o
t h e November 9, 2010, p e t i t i o n
The
trial
court
a
hearing
November
15,
witnesses
to t e s t i f y at the hearing.
se.
2010.
held
f o r p r o t e c t i o n from abuse.
Harris
Williams
testified
that,
and
on
the p e t i t i o n
Harris
were
They b o t h
immediately
the
on
only
appeared p r o
preceding
the
a l t e r c a t i o n , W i l l i a m s was d o w n s t a i r s a n d was a b o u t t o t a k e t h e
television,
brand
belonging
satellite-television
H a r r i s ' s name.
he
and
t o t h e p a r t i e s ' s o n , and t h e D i r e c t T V
which
was
registered i n
H a r r i s t e s t i f i e d t h a t she t o l d W i l l i a m s
could not leave
DirectTV
box,
the m a r i t a l residence
box, which,
she s a i d ,
3
that
with the t e l e v i s o n
caused W i l l i a m s
t o begin
2100283
y e l l i n g , s c r e a m i n g , and c u r s i n g .
the
verbal
outburst,
Williams
H a r r i s caught i t s cord.
pulled
the t e l e v i s i o n
floor.
table
During
the concrete
the
to
and pushed
Harris
scratches
floor.
grabbed
to Harris, during
the t e l e v i s i o n
Harris t e s t i f i e d that Williams
the f a l l ,
and r e c e i v e d
According
Harris
onto
concrete
from t h e t a b l e and
t o H a r r i s , she h a d k e p t h o l d o f
t e l e v i s i o n ' s cord throughout the f a l l ,
hold
then
s a i d , she h i t h e r l e g on a
and b r u i s e s
According
the
and
a n d she
i t f o r t h e n e x t 45 t o 50 m i n u t e s
continued
before
returning
upstairs.
Williams
2010,
gave
a d i f f e r e n t account
altercation.
Williams
o f t h e November
testified
that
he
had
8,
been
s i t t i n g on t h e c o u c h w i t h H a r r i s ' s b r o t h e r w a t c h i n g a f o o t b a l l
game on t e l e v i s i o n when H a r r i s h a d s e n t
to
remove
the DirectTV
television.
Williams
upstairs without
later,
Harris
DirectTV
television
in
order
stated
the DirectTV
came
box.
box, which
that
he
t o take
to Williams,
o f f t h e s h e l f and W i l l i a m s
t o keep
i t from
was
son
downstairs
connected
sent
to the
t h e son
back
b o x a n d t h a t , a b o u t 15 m i n u t e s
downstairs
According
their
crashing
4
the t e l e v i s i o n
Harris
and
p u l l e d the
grabbed the t e l e v i s i o n
to the f l o o r .
Williams
2100283
testified
t h a t H a r r i s then
r e f u s e d t o l e t go o f i t .
onto the cord,
about
two
released
sitting
hours.
grabbed
According
after
after
Harris
area,
flicking
to Williams,
f o r so l o n g .
released
the cord,
t e l e v i s i o n w i t h an a n t e n n a .
Williams t e s t i f i e d ,
at Williams's
Harris
finally
Williams
Williams
from
testified
s e t up
the
For the remainder of the n i g h t ,
Harris continued
the l i g h t s
and
feet, f o r
h e r hand had s t a r t e d t o s w e l l
h o l d i n g o n t o i t so t i g h t l y
that
cord
to Williams, Harris held
on t h e f l o o r
According
the cord
the t e l e v i s i o n
to v i s i t
the
on and o f f , y e l l i n g
downstairs
that
Williams
was t r y i n g t o s t e a l h e r s t u f f , t u r n i n g on and o f f t h e w a s h i n g
m a c h i n e and d r y e r , and m o v i n g h e r q u i l t s and p o s s e s s i o n s
into
her
bedroom.
The n e x t
from
the
residence
b a s e d upon t h e e x p a r t e
order.
residence
The
Williams
has
since being
trial
discrepancies
court
between
incident
during
account
she
day t h e p o l i c e
not
entered
at
protection-from-abuse
or v i s i t e d
the m a r i t a l
removed.
recognized
Harris's
the ex p a r t e
gave
removed W i l l i a m s
the
that
original
hearing
final
there
account
on November
hearing
were
on
of
some
the
9 and t h e
November
15.
However, upon q u e s t i o n i n g b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t , H a r r i s t e s t i f i e d
5
2100283
t h a t W i l l i a m s h a d p u s h e d h e r down o n t o t h e c o n c r e t e
f l o o r and
t h e n p u l l e d h e r when he g r a b b e d h o l d o f t h e t e l e v i s i o n
w h i c h , she s a i d , she was a l r e a d y
holding.
A f t e r h e a r i n g ore tenus e v i d e n c e , the t r i a l court
a
final
protection-from-abuse
cord,
order,
finding
that
entered
domestic
v i o l e n c e had o c c u r r e d and e n j o i n i n g W i l l i a m s from l i v i n g a t o r
v i s i t i n g the m a r t i a l
residence.
Issues
Williams
failing
to
testimony
before
r a i s e s two i s s u e s
give
an
oath
inadmissable
and
to
i n h i s appeal:
the witnesses
(2) w h e t h e r
i t s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support
(1) w h e t h e r
deemed
the t r i a l
i t s final
their
c o u r t had
order.
Standard o f Review
"'"'[W]hen
a trial
court
hears
ore tenus
testimony,
i t s f i n d i n g s on d i s p u t e d
facts are
p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t a n d i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e
f i n d i n g s w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d u n l e s s t h e j u d g m e n t i s
p a l p a b l y e r r o n e o u s o r m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t . ' " ' Water
Works & S a n i t a r y Sewer Bd. v. P a r k s , 977 So. 2d 440,
443 ( A l a . 2007) ( q u o t i n g F a d a l l a v. F a d a l l a , 929 So.
2d 429, 433 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P h i l p o t v .
S t a t e , 843 So. 2d 122, 125 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) .
'"The
p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s , however, i s r e b u t t a b l e
and
may
overcome
where
there
i s insufficient
e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i aa ll c o u r t t o s u s t a i n i t s
j u d g m e n t . " ' Waltman i
v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d 1083, 1086
( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g D e n n i s v . Dobbs, 474 So. 2d 77,
79 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ) .
' A d d i t i o n a l l y , the ore tenus r u l e
does n o t e x t e n d t o c l o a k w i t h a p r e s u m p t i o n o f
6
2100283
c o r r e c t n e s s a t r i a l judge's c o n c l u s i o n s of law or
i n c o r r e c t a p p l i c a t i o n o f l a w t o t h e f a c t s . ' Waltman
v. R o w e l l , 913 So. 2d a t 1086."
Retail
Inc.,
D e v e l o p e r s o f A l a b a m a , LLC v. E a s t Gadsden G o l f
985 So. 2d 924, 929
Club,
( A l a . 2007).
Analysis
F i r s t , W i l l i a m s argues t h a t the testimony
hearing i s inadmissable
an o a t h
because the t r i a l court f a i l e d t o g i v e
to either Williams
the testimony
or H a r r i s .
i s inadmissable,
regarding
Ala.
R.
order.
the t r i a l
Williams
and t h i s
of I n d u s t r i a l
November 19, 2010]
However, t h i s
R u l e 603
because
rests
court's protection-
his
entire
the i n a d m i s s a b i l i t y of the testimony
Evid.,
Department
Accordingly,
W i l l i a m s c o n t e n d s , t h e r e i s no
admissible evidence t o support
from-abuse
from the f i n a l
court's
recent
Relations
So. 3d
,
v.
argument
on R u l e
d e c i s i o n i n Alabama
Smith,
[Ms.
2090775,
( A l a . C i v . App.
argument i s m i s g u i d e d and w i t h o u t
2010).
merit.
provides:
"Before
testifying,
every
witness
shall
be
r e q u i r e d t o d e c l a r e t h a t the witness w i l l t e s t i f y
t r u t h f u l l y , by oath or a f f i r m a t i o n a d m i n i s t e r e d i n
a f o r m c a l c u l a t e d t o awaken t h e w i t n e s s ' s
conscience
and i m p r e s s t h e w i t n e s s ' s m i n d w i t h t h e d u t y t o do
so."
7
603,
2100283
R u l e 603 o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e i s m o d e l e d a f t e r t h e
same r u l e
of the Federal Rules
of Evidence,
and i t i s w e l l
e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t " c a s e s c o n s t r u i n g t h e f e d e r a l r u l e s a r e t o be
considered authority f o r this
the
Alabama
1015,
rules."
s t a t e ' s c o u r t s when c o n s t r u i n g
Shoney's,
1029 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 9 ) ; s e e R u l e 102, A l a . R. E v i d . ,
A d v i s o r y Committee's Notes
( s t a t i n g t h a t "cases
the F e d e r a l Rules of Evidence
construction
cases
I n c . v . B a r n e t t , 773 So. 2d
o f t h e Alabama R u l e s
interpreting
the f e d e r a l
than mandatory a u t h o r i t y .
Committee's
The
will
constitute
interpreting
authority for
of Evidence").
rules
are persuasive
102, A l a . R. E v i d . , A d v i s o r y
of Rule
603 mandates t h a t an o a t h be
Notes.
plain
federal
failure
if
So.
rather
Rule
language
administered before a witness i s allowed to t e s t i f y .
both
However,
c o u r t s and Alabama
c o u r t s have
However,
h e l d that the
t o g i v e s u c h an o a t h o r a f f i r m a t i o n i s deemed w a i v e d
not objected t o i n the t r i a l
c o u r t . Merton v. S t a t e ,
2d 1301 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1 9 8 6 ) ;
S a x t o n v. S t a t e ,
500
389 So.
2d 5 4 1 , 543 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1980) ( " I f a w i t n e s s i s a l l o w e d
to
give evidence before the jury without f i r s t being
lawfully
s w o r n , i t i s t h e d u t y o f t h e j u d g e , as soon as i t i s c a l l e d t o
8
2100283
his
a t t e n t i o n , t o immediately administer
witness.");
Cir.
and U n i t e d
1984).
S t a t e s v . Odom, 736 F . 2 d 104,
More s p e c i f i c a l l y ,
has
held that,
to
a witness's
a proper oath t o the
115 ( 4 t h
the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals
" j u s t as a d e f e n d a n t may w a i v e a n y i m p e d i m e n t
capacity
to testify
by f a i l i n g
to object,
C o n n e r v . S t a t e , 52 A l a . App. 82, 87, 289 So. 2d ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,
cert.
d e n i e d , 292 A l a . 716, 289 So. 2 d 656 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , s o may he w a i v e
the
failure
t o place
a w i t n e s s under oath by t h e f a i l u r e t o
o b j e c t . " M e r t o n , 500 So. 2d a t 1306;
2d 54,
Green v. S t a t e ,
586 So.
55 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 1991) ( " [ b ] y f a i l i n g t o o b j e c t , t h e
a p p e l l a n t waived the i s s u e o f any a l l e g e d f a i l u r e t o p l a c e t h e
w i t n e s s e s under oath.
The
requirement
testimony
State,
M e r t o n v . S t a t e , 500 So. 2 d a t 1 3 0 6 . " ) .
that
at t r i a l
a party
i s not a novel
object
concept.
t o any unsworn
See Murphy v .
25 A l a . App. 237, 239-40, 144 So. 114, 116-17
("wherever
i t appears
affirmed),
and t h e p a r t y
that
makes t i m e l y o b j e c t i o n s ,
Moreover,
reasoning
the
must
that
i s n o t s o sworn ( o r
a g a i n s t whom t h e w i t n e s s i s o f f e r e d
s u c h t e s t i m o n y must be
the federal
failure
a witness
(1932)
courts
t o object
also
follow
excluded").
the l i n e
of
w a i v e s any i s s u e
regarding
a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f u n s w o r n t e s t i m o n y . See U n i t e d
S t a t e s v.
9
2100283
Perez,
651
F.2d
268,
273
( 5 t h C i r . 1981)
( " I t has
l o n g been
t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t e v e n a f a i l u r e t o swear a w i t n e s s may
be
waived.
an
attempt
This
to
may
occur
raise
either
by
objection after
knowing
verdict
silence
or
by
and
the
mere
f a i l u r e of counsel t o n o t i c e the o m i s s i o n b e f o r e completion of
the
trial."(footnotes
Alabama caselaw
not
support
administer
testimony
and
omitted)).
f e d e r a l caselaw
Williams's
an
Therefore,
oath
to
inadmissable,
i n t e r p r e t i n g Rule
contention
a
that
witness
renders
absent
an
established
the
603
failure
such
objection in
do
to
witness's
the
trial
court.
Furthermore,
Williams
relies
t h i s c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n Smith, supra,
upon on
appeal,
i s distinguishable
p r e s e n t c a s e i n s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t ways.
on a p p e a l
from
the
In Smith, the i s s u e
r e g a r d e d u n s w o r n t e s t i m o n y g i v e n d u r i n g a summary-
judgment h e a r i n g .
file
which
a response
Smith, the p l a i n t i f f i n t h a t case, d i d not
t o the
summary-judgment m o t i o n
but
appeared
p r o se a t t h e h e a r i n g and o f f e r e d o r a l l e g a l a r g u m e n t s a g a i n s t
t h e e n t r y o f a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t .
At
the
in
hearing,
each
side
argued
their
position,
and,
a d d i t i o n , S m i t h made numerous r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t
10
2100283
that
amounted
t o unsworn
"'allegations
[ d e f e n d a n t ' s ] a l l e g a t i o n s and d e n i a l s . "
our
supreme
"'[m]otions
court noted
of the
So. 3d a t
i n Fountain Finance,
.
I n c . v.
( A l a . 2000)
As
Hines,
and a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l a r e n o t e v i d e n c e . ' "
So. 2d 155, 159
788
( q u o t i n g W i l l i a m s v. A k z o N o b e l
Chems., I n c . , 999 S.W.2d 836, 845
Smith,
or d e n i a l s '
(Tex. App. 1 9 9 9 ) ) .
Thus, i n
S m i t h was m a k i n g l e g a l a r g u m e n t s and d i d n o t t a k e t h e
w i t n e s s s t a n d t o o f f e r f a c t u a l t e s t i m o n y , as d i d t h e w i t n e s s e s
in
the i n s t a n t case.
of
whether a p a r t y o b j e c t e d t o t h e use o f unsworn t e s t i m o n y a t
the t r i a l
court l e v e l .
circumstances
In
this
Harris
were
that
F u r t h e r , i n Smith,
there
i n this
t h e r e i s no m e n t i o n
T h e r e f o r e , t h e p r o c e d u r a l p o s t u r e and
case are u n l i k e
Smith.
c a s e , t h e r e c o r d does n o t show t h a t W i l l i a m s o r
sworn as w i t n e s s e s .
was
no
objection to
w i t n e s s e s by e i t h e r p a r t y .
Further, the r e c o r d
the
failure
to
shows
swear
the
Therefore, the issue that n e i t h e r
p a r t y was sworn i s b e i n g r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l .
This court adopts the r a t i o n a l e of the Court of C r i m i n a l
Appeals
trial
and t h e f e d e r a l
c o u r t s t h a t any o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e
c o u r t f a i l e d t o a d m i n i s t e r an o a t h t o a w i t n e s s must be
r a i s e d i n the t r i a l
c o u r t b e f o r e t h e e n t r y o f judgment, and,
11
2100283
a b s e n t o b j e c t i o n a t t h a t t i m e , any c l a i m o f i n a d m i s s a b i l i t y o f
unsworn t e s t i m o n y
of the
witness
i s waived.
As
r e c o r d i s c l e a r t h a t , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was
the t r i a l
placed
c o u r t r e g a r d i n g the f a i l u r e
under
oath.
Finally,
considering
Williams
the
unsworn
have s u f f i c i e n t
evidence
from-abuse o r d e r .
Harris
was
required to
preponderance
of
the
of
before
appeal
the
the
be
trial
trial
that,
to § 30-5-6(a),
the
evidence."
trial
not
protection-
A l a . Code
allegation
The
even
court d i d
i t to enter the
tenus evidence before e n t e r i n g i t s f i n a l
order.
failure
on
testimony,
"prove
no o b j e c t i o n i n
waived.
argues
Pursuant
the
of the w i t n e s s e s to
A c c o r d i n g l y , the
c o u r t t o a d m i n i s t e r an o a t h was
noted,
1975,
o f abuse by
court heard
a
ore
protection-from-abuse
I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t d u r i n g an a l t e r c a t i o n
involving
t h e t e l e v i s i o n , H a r r i s f e l l on t h e c o n c r e t e f l o o r on November
8, 2010.
the
floor
However, t h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e w h e t h e r H a r r i s f e l l
on
her
own
or whether
p a r t i e s t e s t i f i e d t o two
W i l l i a m s pushed her.
completely d i f f e r e n t accounts
The
of the
events.
" I n an o r e t e n u s p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ,
'[t]he t r i a l
c o u r t i s i n the best p o s i t i o n
to
o b s e r v e t h e demeanor o f w i t n e s s e s and t o a s s e s s
t h e i r c r e d i b i l i t y . ' Y e l l o w F r e i g h t S y s . , I n c . v.
12
to
2100283
G r e e n , 612 So. 2d
I t was t h e d u t y o f
f a c t , to resolve
H a r d e n v. H a r d e n ,
App.
1982)."
P e t r y v.
Petry,
Therefore,
the
989
1209, 1211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) .
t h e t r i a l c o u r t , as t h e t r i e r o f
any c o n f l i c t s i n t h e
evidence.
418 So. 2d 159, 161
(Ala. Civ.
So.
trial
2d
1128,
court
1134
could
( A l a . C i v . App.
have
reasonably
2008).
concluded
f r o m t h e demeanor o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t H a r r i s ' s t e s t i m o n y
was
more c r e d i b l e t h a n W i l l i a m s ' s
"'[T]his court
is
on
to
not
permitted
to
reweigh
testimony.
the
evidence
appeal
s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t of the t r i a l c o u r t . ' "
v. S c h i e s z , 941
So.
Sellers
v.
2004)).
Thus, we
2d 279,
Sellers,
893
289
( A l a . C i v . App.
So.
2d
456,
461
2006)
(Ala.
or
Schiesz
(quoting
Civ.
App.
c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment
s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e and
i s due
was
t o be a f f i r m e d
on
A l t h o u g h the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not r e q u i r e the w i t n e s s e s
to
appeal.
Conclusion
t a k e an o a t h ,
t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y - o f - t e s t i m o n y i s s u e was
b e c a u s e t h e r e was
the
trial
evidence.
no
court's
We,
o b j e c t i o n i n the
judgment
was
13
court.
supported
t h e r e f o r e , a f f i r m the
AFFIRMED.
trial
trial
by
court's
waived
Further,
sufficient
judgment.
2100283
Thompson,
P . J . , and
Pittman,
concur.
14
Bryan,
and
Moore, J J . ,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
