Baldwin v. State
| Decision Date | 29 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 355 |
| Citation | 213 So.2d 819,282 Ala. 653 |
| Parties | Miller BALDWIN v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Lloyd G. Hart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to life Appellant contends that the court erred in ruling admissible in evidence two photographs of the deceased, Ruth Boykin. One was made in her house before her body was moved; the other was made in the funeral home by the toxicologist. The argument is that the two photographs were irrelevant, immaterial and gruesome.
imprisonment. His motion for a new trial was overruled and he appealed.
Appellant argues that he did not deny that the deceased was shot and killed, but since 'his only defense was that he did not commit the crime, and offered evidence of an alibi,' the photographs were not relevant or material. We cannot agree.
The burden was on the State to show that appellant killed Ruth Boykin by shooting her with a pistol. Both pictures showed the face of the deceased and showed the location of bullet wounds. The photographs met the test that they must have some tendency to prove or disprove some disputed or material issue, to illustrate or elucidate some other relevant fact or evidence, to corroborate or disprove some other evidence offered or to be offered. Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217, 100 So.2d 750; Knight v. State, 273 Ala. 480, 142 So.2d 899.
As long as the plea of not guilty stood, the State had the right to prove its case up to the hilt and to choose its own way of doing so, subject only to the rules of evidence and the standards of fair play. Powell v. State, 40 Ala.App. 148, 109 So.2d 525, and cases there cited.
The pictures depicted death but were not particularly offensive. The photograph of the whole body showed a few blood stains on decedent's left cheek or jaw, and the other was a photograph of her bust with a probe inserted in the path of the bullet along the side of her cheek and jaw, and a bullet hole in the side of her chest.
Courts and juries cannot be too squeamish about looking at unpleasant things, objects or circumstances in proceedings to enforce the law and especially if truth is on trial. The mere fact that an item of evidence is gruesome or revolting, if it sheds light on, strengthens or gives character to other evidence sustaining the issues in the case, should not exclude it. Nichols v. State, 267 Ala. 217, 100 So.2d 750; Hines v. State, 260 Ala. 668, 72 So.2d 296. The court did not err in admitting the photographs into evidence. Mathis v. State, 280 Ala. 16, 189 So.2d 564; Boulden v. State, 278 Ala. 437, 179 So.2d 20.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in its rulings on the following questions propounded by the special prosecutor to a witness who had testified to the good reputation of the defendant and that he had never heard anything against him:
'Q Did you ever hear anything about a case against him for VPL?
'A No sir.
'Q Have you evern heard anything about a case against him for violating the prohibition law in 1944?
'A No.
'Q Have you ever heard anything about a case against him in 1944 for Sunday gambling?
'A No.
'Q Have you ever heard anything about a case against him for illegal possession of whiskey in 1960?
The answer to the first three questions was 'No'; and the court sustained the objection to the fourth.
Appellant's argument is answered by the following from Helms v. State, 254 Ala. 14, 47 So.2d 276:
The last sentence quoted supra is also supported by Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 122 So.2d 360; Johnson v. State, 260 Ala. 276, 69 So.2d 854, and Stephens v. State, 250 Ala. 123, 33 So.2d 245.
A brief outline of some of the pertinent evidence shows that on Sunday night, April 16, 1967, John Stallworth, a neighbor of the deceased, had come to deceased's home to look at television. The son of deceased took the husband of deceased to work. Stallworth was looking at the program, 'Sunday Night at the Movies,' which began at 8:00 P.M., when appellant drove up in a Mercury automobile and knocked on the door. The deceased let him in, and after he spoke to Stallworth, appellant walked into the kitchen where the deceased was. About a minute later, the deceased walked into the dining room and began dialing the telephone. Stallworth heard a shot and saw deceased fall on her back. He then saw appellant walk toward deceased and he fired again. He then shot at Stallworth twice without hitting him. Stallworth ran out of the house toward his home and he saw the Mercury being driven away. His wife called the sheriff's office. Another witness, Frances Millender, who lived about one-half mile from appellant's home, testified that about 8:30 or 9:00 P.M., appellant drove up to her house and asked for her husband. She told appellant her husband was asleep and he left. He was arrested at his house some two hours after the shooting was reported. Tuesday, her husband showed her a pistol in the fork of a double pine tree in their yard near the place where appellant had stopped his automobile on the previous Sunday night. The Millenders notified the sheriff and one of his deputies came for the pistol.
On Monday, deputy sheriff Brock got a search warrant and he and officer Kent went to appellant's home. He testified that he informed appellant's wife that he was looking for a pistol. They found a pistol box with a receipt or bill of sale from a Pensacola pawnshop to appellant for the purchase of a pistol in it. Both the receipt and the box contained the same serial number as that found on the pistol in the tree outside the Millender home.
A State Toxicologist, Guy Purnell, testified that, based upon ballistic tests he made, the bullet which killed decedent was fired from the pistol in evidence.
The defendant testified that he did not shoot decedent, that he was not there, but that he left home in his car about 8:00 P.M., went to Frances Millender's home, drank about three beers, returned home and went to bed, where he was when arrested. He testified that he had not owned a gun in twenty-seven years and the reason the receipt for the gun was in his name was that about a year before a Robert Johnson Appellant argues that the evidence relating to the receipt or bill of sale for the pistol was inadmissible because the search warrant was illegal.
gave him the money and told him to go to a pawnshop and buy the pistol. The defendant stated that he did this and turned the pistol over to Johnson and Johnson's son and that he has tried to locate the man ahd had been unsuccessful.
On Monday morning, following the shooting and the arrest of appellant, and the securing of the statement of the eyewitness Stallworth, a search warrant was issued to aid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petersen v. State
...in the case, should not exclude it." ’" Gwin v. State, 425 So. 2d 500, 508 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982) (quoting Baldwin v. State, 282 Ala. 653, 656, 213 So. 2d 819, 820 (1968) )." Thompson, 153 So. 3d at 130.In the present case, we note that Petersen does not argue that the 123 "inflammatory" ph......
-
Lindsay v. State
...the issues in the case, should not exclude it.’ " Gwin v. State, 425 So.2d 500, 508 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982), quoting Baldwin v. State, 282 Ala. 653, 656, 213 So.2d 819 (1968).The circuit court did not abuse its considerable discretion in allowing the photographs to be received into evidence.......
-
Carpenter v. State
...to admit photographs of the deceased made at the scene and also photographs of the deceased made at the funeral home. Baldwin v. State, 282 Ala. 653, 213 So.2d 819 (1968). It is also proper to introduce photographs of the deceased lying on his back with his shirt open which show the locatio......
-
Osgood v. State
...issues in the case, should not exclude it.’ " Gwin v. State, 425 So.2d 500, 508 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982), quoting Baldwin v. State, 282 Ala. 653, 656, 213 So.2d 819, 820 (1968).In the present case, Osgood entered a plea of not guilty. Thus, the State had the burden of proving his guilt beyond......