Anderson v. State

• Decision Date: 08 April 1924
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 851.
• Citation: Anderson v. State, 19 Ala.App. 606, 99 So. 778 (Ala. App. 1924)
• Parties: ANDERSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

99 So. 778

19 Ala.App. 606

ANDERSON v. STATE.

4 Div. 851.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 8, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; George W. Peach, Special Judge.

Daisy Anderson, alias Rice, was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Farmer, Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

From a judgment of conviction of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree, carrying therewith a sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary for four years, the term fixed by the verdict of the jury, this defendant, appealed. She was charged in the indictment with murder in the first degree.

In this decision no good purpose can be subserved by a recitation of the sordid, odious, noxious, and disgusting facts adduced upon this trial in the court below.

It has well been said that courts of law are not invested with the powers of selection. They must take the law as it is imposed upon them, and courts of the highest jurisdiction must often go into cases of the most objectionable, filthy, and revolting nature where the proceeding is only for the punishment of the offender. And while the facts disclosed by this record may properly be termed within the class enumerated above, and in addition thereto may be said to be polluting and nauseating, the material inquiry must of necessity be confined to the homicide charge upon which the accused was tried and convicted, and not to the obnoxious immoral acts or conduct of the principals which is disclosed by the evidence upon this trial. In other words, the first material inquiry is: Did the unfortunate deceased come to his death by unlawful violence, or has the identical offense complained of in the indictment been committed? And the next inquiry is: Was it committed by the accused and in the form and manner stated in the indictment?

A careful attentive consideration of the whole evidence in this case, by this court, convinces us that the prosecution must fall, for the reason that under the required rules it clearly appears that the corpus delicti was not proven. The evidence in our opinion is overwhelming to the effect that the deceased met his death as a result of natural causes and not by violence. This being true the defendant, under the specific charge, the only charge she was called upon to defend, should have been acquitted.

In every criminal case the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime charged has, in fact, been committed. The state also has the same burden of showing that the accused is the person who committed it. Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42, 47; Smith v State, 133 Ala. 145, 150, 31 So. 806, 91 Am. St. Rep 21; Perry v. State, 155 Ala. 93, 46 So. 470; Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417, 28 L. R A. (N. S.) 536; Hill v. State, 207 Ala. 444, 93 So. 460. In the latter case (Hill v. State) the rule governing this question is well stated. See, also, Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187, Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 14 So. 868. In Clisby v. State, 17 Ala. App. 475, 86 So. 140, this court said:

"The general rule as to sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases is, there must be clear and unequivocal proof of the corpus delicti. Every criminal charge involves two things: (1) That an offense has been committed, and (2) that the accused is the author or one of the authors of it." Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 536.

In the instant case the undisputed legal evidence shows that the deceased was afflicted with serious heart trouble, and the testimony of the only witnesses who appeared to be qualified to testify as to the cause of death, gave as their expert opinion, that the deceased came to his death as a result of a diseased and ruptured blood vessel leading off from his heart. This testimony was given by the eminent surgeons and physicians who held an autopsy over the body of deceased; and, in his qualified statements, corroborated by state's witness, Dr. Britt, who made only a cursory external examination of the body.

The only conflict in the testimony upon this important question was that given by one Dowling, a state witness, and who testified that he was an undertaker only. Over the objection of defendant this witness was permitted, by the court, to give his opinion and conclusion as to the cause of death of the deceased. In this there was error as the witness was not shown to be an expert. Jones v. State, 155 Ala. 1, 46 So. 579. In the Jones Case, the Supreme Court held, where a nonexpert...