. . .' "Mitchell v. State, 570 So.2d 738, 739 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990) (quoting Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130,135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)). Mitchell contends that the State failed, on each count, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of felony murder.
"Where a motion for judgment of acquittal is made at the close of the State's case, the trial court has a duty to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction under the indictment by considering the evidence before the jury at the time of the motion, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Faircloth v. State, 471 So.2d 485, 489 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), aff'd, 471 So.2d 493 (Ala. 1985)." See also Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Rule 20.2, A.R.Cr.P. Additionally, in State v. Terry, 601 So.2d 161, 163 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992), this court held:
" 'When there is legal evidence from which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial court should submit the case for the jury to determine the weight it will give the evidence.' Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983)."Ayers v. State, 594 So.2d 719, 720 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991).
"When there is legal evidence from which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial court should submit the case for the jury to determine the weight it will give the evidence." Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Because the state did present evidence of forcible compulsion pursuant to § 13A-6-60(8), Code of Alabama 1975, we find that the trial court correctly denied the appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal.
. . ."Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). See Mitchell v. State, 570 So.2d 738 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990).
. . ."Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). Because sufficiency of evidence is challenged, we will give a detailed recitation of the facts.
However, the above evidence along with the prosecutrix being mentally slow was sufficient for the judge to allow this to go to the jury, who determined the appellant exercised physical force which overcame the prosecutrix's earnest resistance. As stated in Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130, 135 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983): "When a motion for a judgment of acquittal before submission of cause to a jury is made on the grounds that the state has failed to make out a prima facie case because the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the duty of the trial court to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction under the indictment.
State v. Rodriguez, supra, 509 A.2d at 71-72. See also Taylor v. City of Decatur, 465 So.2d 479 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Fletcher v. State, 460 So.2d 341 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984); Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983). IV.
When there is legal evidence from which the jury could, by fair inference, find the defendant guilty, the trial court should submit it to the jury, and, in such a case, this court will not disturb the trial court's decision. Koger v. State, 443 So.2d 1343 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983), Sullivan v. State, 441 So.2d 130 (Ala.Crim.App. 1983); Bozeman v. State, 401 So.2d 167 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 401 So.2d 171 (Ala.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1058 (1981); Johnson v. State, 378 So.2d 1164 (Ala.Crim.App.), writ quashed, 378 So.2d 1173 (Ala. 1979); A.R.Crim.P.Temp. 12.1 (a),(b), and 12.2 (a)-(c). The State's evidence before the jury at the time of the motion to exclude showed that the jailer, Wooten, came to work at the Cherokee County jail early in the morning of May 6, 1983. He relieved the night jailer, who immediately left the jail.