14 So.2d 242 (Ala.App. 1943), 4 Div. 759, Barnes v. State
|Docket Nº:||4 Div. 759.|
|Citation:||14 So.2d 242, 31 Ala.App. 187|
|Party Name:||BARNES v. STATE.|
|Case Date:||May 11, 1943|
|Court:||Alabama Court of Appeals|
Rehearing Denied May 25, 1943.[31 Ala.App. 188]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Covington County; Robt. S. Reid, Judge.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Barnes v. State, 14 So.2d 246.
Ralph A. Clark, of Andalusia, for appellant.
Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant, Cecil Barnes, was convicted of robbery and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. The alleged victim was one M. L. Coxwell, who was the only eye witness to the transaction other than the defendant and certain of defendant's family, among whom were his wife, Louise Barnes, and his wife's brother-in-law, Jimmy Douglas.
In addition to a plea of not guilty, he interposed the special plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
The fact was without dispute that in April of 1942, the defendant received from Coxwell $59 in money and a check drawn upon an Andalusia bank, payable to defendant and signed by Coxwell, in the amount of $575. The vital conflict in the testimony was whether defendant criminally procured this property from Coxwell, as was claimed by the State, or whether the alleged victim voluntarily parted with it in good faith and without any felonious conduct on the part of defendant.
Coxwell's testimony substantiated the accusation of robbery. The defendant and his witnesses, on the contrary, contended that, by prearrangement between the two, they met to settle certain differences between themselves, and that the money and check were voluntarily delivered to defendant, without duress, pursuant thereto.
The defendant contended, and sought to prove, that Coxwell had forced upon defendant's wife illicit consortion since her childhood; that defendant recently discovered this and confronted Coxwell with it and requested that they meet and have an understanding about it; that defendant did not want money and, when they did meet, so told Coxwell; that the purpose of meeting was to have Coxwell's "assurance that you (Coxwell) won't molest my (defendant's) wife any more." That Coxwell, for fear of public disclosure of these ulterior things, and the consequent impugnment of his reputation generally, as well as the disrupture of his domestic felicity, insisted upon paying the defendant so he (defendant)[31 Ala.App. 189] could settle up his affairs and remove, with his family, to another state.
In addition, it was contended by defendant (and he sought to prove) that recently received information regarding this alleged debauchment of his wife by Coxwell had so deranged his mind as to render him legally irresponsible.
There are two material questions reserved for review arising from the rulings of the trial court upon the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP