Pike v. State

• Decision Date: 18 November 1931
• Citation: 139 So. 196,103 Fla. 594
• Parties: PIKE v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

139 So. 196

103 Fla. 594

PIKE v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court, Division A.

November 18, 1931

Error to Circuit Court, Lake County; J. C. B. Koonce, Judge.

J. C Pike was convicted of murder. To review a judgment denying petition for writ of error coram nobis, defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

COUNSEL T. C. Cork, of Clermont, and E. W. & R. C Davis, of Orlando, for plaintiff in error.

Cary D Landis, Atty. Gen., and Roy Campbell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

ELLIS J.

A writ of error was taken to a judgment denying to the plaintiff in error a writ of error coram nobis.

J. C Pike was convicted of the murder of Levi Nathan Allen in Lake county, Fla. The murder was alleged to have occurred on the 6th day of July, 1929. The conviction occurred in January, 1930. At writ of error was taken to the judgment, which this court affirmed. See Pike v. State (Fla.) 134 So. 54.

Pike's defense was an alibi, which this court, as well as the trial court, thought was not satisfactorily established. He was indicted jointly with Hiram Wesley Prescott. In one count Prescott was charged with being principal in the second degree. In another count Pike was charged as principal in the first degree and Prescott as principal in the second degree. When Pike was put upon trial, he obtained a severance upon his affidavit that Prescott had made statements incriminating Pike and had subsequently denied the truthfulness of such statements, but that his statements nevertheless would be admitted against Prescott and harmful to Pike, although inadmissible against him. The affidavit also averred that Prescott's statements charge Pike with the commission of the crime. The affidavit also averred that a man named Rogers (J. Ruffen) whould testify that he heard Pike and Prescott in a conversation in which they formulated an explanation of the wounds on the person of Prescott.

In April, 1931, Pike applied to this court by petition for leave to apply to the trial judge, Hon. J. C. B. Koonce, for a writ of error coram nobis, and the petition was granted. The judge denied the writ. To that judgment, as hereinbefore stated, the case is here on writ of error.

The contention was made that certain facts, 'which would have afforded an effective and complete defense' to the charge against Pike, were not discovered, ascertained, or made known to the court, the defendant, or his counsel, because of duress and unlawful means actually exerted by the prosecution in the trial court to prevent such discovery in due season to be available as a defense and to prevent the rendering of the final judgment.

It was explained that Prescott alone testified to the guilt of Pike, and without his testimony no conviction could have been obtained; that it was he who testified that he was present and saw Pike commit the murder; that J. Ruffen Rogers was a state witness, and his name was on the back of the indictment as such witness, but he was taken into custody and detained in the common jail by the sheriff of Lake county on the order of the state attorney as a material witness for the state until after the trial of Pike, and that Rogers was never called as a witness in the trial, although the state attorney knew that the witness Rogers would testify that Prescott told Rogers on the day after the killing that Prescott had become involved in a dispute with a woman in Lake county armed with a knife, and who cut him, and Prescott 'had to use a hammer on her, and also on her companion (Allen) and requested that he (Rogers) help him (Prescott) to establish an alibi.' It is inferred that the Allen referred to was Levi Nathan Allen, who was killed, and the woman, who was Mrs. Angie Gillis, was killed at the same time; that the 'prosecution' did not inform the defendant or his counsel that Rogers would so testify, but held him in custody and instructed him not to inform Pike, his counsel, or his family of the fact; that it was by reason of the suppression of such evidence by the prosecution that Pike was convicted.

It was contended that Rogers was unlawfully restrained of his liberty for two reasons: First, to prevent Rogers from coming into contact with the counsel or family of Pike or indulging in neighborhood talk that might come to the attention of Pike, his counsel or family; second, to use Rogers 'as an instrument to force and compel the said Prescott to testify that Pike committed the murders'; that Rogers was never used as a witness in the trial of either Pike or Prescott. It is also contended that the trial of Prescott for the murder was a 'sham or pretext for discharging' him from custody to carry out the 'terms of an agreement, either express or implied, to liberate Prescott in the event of the conviction of Pike.'

It is thus apparent that the basis of the application to the court for a writ of error coram nobis was fraud or deception...