Blackburn v. State

• Decision Date: 05 November 1958
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 407
• Citation: 40 Ala.App. 116,109 So.2d 736
• Parties: Jesse BLACKBURN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

Page 736

109 So.2d 736

40 Ala.App. 116

Jesse BLACKBURN v. STATE.

8 Div. 407.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 5, 1958.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 6, 1959.

W. H. Mitchell, Jr., Florence, and Truman Hobbs, Montgomery, for appellant.

John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRICE, Judge.

The United States Supreme Court has remanded this case for a consideration of appellant's claim to the protection of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Blackburn v. State, 38 Ala.App. 143, 88 So.2d 199, certiorari denied 264 Ala. 694, 88 So.2d 205, reversed 354 U.S. 393, 77 S.Ct. 1098, 1 L.Ed.2d 1423.

The admission of the alleged confession was objected to on the ground that it was not voluntary in that (1) it was obtained by sustained questioning, and (2) appellant was shown to have been insane at the time the confession was obtained. On voir dire examination appellant introduced evidence consisting of the depositions of Drs. Rowe and Tarwater, each expressing the opinion that appellant was incompetent at the time of the alleged crime (April 19, 1948) and also at the time of the confession (May 8, 1948). The State's evidence on voir dire consisted of (1) the deposition of Dr. Richards, to the effect that during the entire period of appellant's stay in Searcy Hospital he was mentally normal (July 1948-November 1952), and that he was also normal at the time of the alleged crime and at the time of the confession; and (2) oral testimony of Mr. Stanford, the deputy sheriff, who did most of the questioning and wrote up the confession for appellant's signature. Mr. Stanford's testimony was to the effect that appellant 'talked sensible' during the interrogation.

After hearing the above, which was all the evidence offered on voir dire, the trial court ruled that the confession should be admitted. Under Alabama law this amounted to a finding that the confession had been voluntarily made. Pittman v. State, 36 Ala.App. 179, 54 So.2d 630, certiorari denied 256 Ala. 369, 54 So.2d 632.

The rule is that 'When confessions are admitted on controverted questions of fact, this court will not revise the rulings of the lower court, admitting them, unless they appear to be manifestly wrong.' Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510, 28 So.2d 542, 550. See also Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415, 66 So.2d 544.

We concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the confession.

There was expert testimony to the effect that appellant had long periods of normal mental condition, periods during which he was considered competent.

Mr. Stanford, as above noted, testified that at the time of obtaining the confession appellant 'talked sensible.' He had been told by appellant during the interrogation of appellant's having been in a mental institution and of having been discharged therefrom, yet at that time he considered appellant normal. This same officer later observed actions by appellant which led him to report to the sheriff the possibility that appellant was insane. According to Mr. Stanford, appellant had been in jail for 'quite some time' before he showed signs of insanity. This in turn resulted in an investigation by physicians whose report was made on July 26, 1948, recommending that appellant be turned over to Alabama State Hospital for further observation.

Dr. Tarwater, the head of the State insane hospital system, is headquartered at Tuscaloosa, and saw Blackburn on 'at least four or five occasions during his stay in Searcy Hospital.' This stay was in two parts (a) July 29, 1948, to January 24, 1949; and (b) April 23, 1949, to November 12, 1952. The gap was a period of freedom on escape. In these 49 months of...