Bettis v. State

• Decision Date: 13 May 1909
• Citation: 49 So. 781,160 Ala. 3
• Parties: BETTIS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

49 So. 781

160 Ala. 3

BETTIS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 13, 1909

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clarke County; John T. Lackland, Judge.

Mattie Bettis was convicted of murder in the second degree, and she appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant is charged with killing her husband, Milton Bettis. The witness Trawick testified that when at the scene of the killing, without offering defendant any reward, or holding out any inducement, or making any promises of any kind to her she stated to him that some one came up from behind and shot and the deceased fell, and defendant got scared and ran off. He further testified that under the same circumstances, but after defendant had been placed in the calaboose, defendant said to him that she had killed deceased with a pistol that was there. Witness further stated that when he walked up to the calaboose there was a crowd around there, and that some were talking; that he was not aware of what was being said or what had been said; but at the time she made this statement nothing was said. Practically the same state of facts and circumstances surround the evidence of the witness Bettis, and his evidence was in all respect similar to that of Trawick.

H. G Davis and Wilson & Aldridge, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMPSON J.

The appellant was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree. It affirmatively appears that the statement made by the defendant, while in the calaboose, to the witness Trawick, was voluntary; and it was properly admitted. The fact that there was a crowd around the calaboose, talking when witness approached, does not tend to controvert the statement of the witness as to the absence of circumstances which would render the statement not voluntary. The same is true with regard to the statements made to Steve Bettis, which were not really confessions, but exculpatory statements, which were properly admitted, for the purpose of showing the different statements made by the defendant in regard to the killing.

There was no error in overruling the objection, by counsel for the defendant, to the question propounded to the defendant, on cross-examination, as to statements made by her to Trawick. When the defendant takes the stand as a witness, she is subject to cross-examination, as any other witness. 1 Mayfield's Dig. p. 335; Smith v. State, 137 Ala 23, 28, 34 So. 396. There was no error in sustaining...