Bradford v. State

• Decision Date: 09 August 1894
• Citation: 16 So. 107,104 Ala. 68
• Parties: BRADFORD v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 107

104 Ala. 68

BRADFORD v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

August 9, 1894

Appeal from city court of Anniston; James W. Lapsley, Judge.

Wallace Bradford was convicted of a crime against nature, and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant in this case was tried and convicted under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment that Wallace Bradford, against the order of nature, attempted to carnally know a certain beast, to wit, a cow, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." The second count of the indictment is the same, except the beast referred to therein is a heifer. The defendant demurred to the indictment, on the ground that it failed to allege that the crime against nature had been committed, and because the indictment merely charges defendant with an attempt to commit the crime against nature. This demurrer was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted.

J. R Hicks, a witness for the state, testified to facts tending to show that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment, and, further, that he was standing at his lot gate when the defendant came out of the cow stable following the heifer, with his private parts exposed; the solicitor for the state asked the witness the following question: "If there was any conversation between you and the defendant, as to what he had been doing, just after he came out of the stable, state what the conversation was." The defendant objected to this question, "because it was irrelevant immaterial, incompetent, and illegal, and because the state had failed to show that the crime charged in the indictment had been committed." The court overruled this objection and the defendant duly excepted. The witness then answered "When the defendant came out of the stable, I showed him, and asked him what he had been doing, and he said, 'Well, you have caught up with me."' The defendant moved to exclude this testimony from the jury, which motion the court overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. After the return of the verdict of guilty by the jury, the defendant moved the court to set aside said verdict, on the ground, among others, that the jury did not deliver their said verdict to the clerk of the court, but to some person who was not authorized by law to receive the said verdict. The court overruled this motion, and the defendant duly excepted.

T. C. Sensabough, for appellant.

Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HEAD J.

There is no valid objection to the indictment in this case. Jackson v. State, 91 Ala. 55, 8 So. 773; Clark, Cr Law, § 274, and cases cited. The defendant's objections to the introduction of his confessions were based upon the grounds that the evidence was irrelevant, immaterial, incompetent, and illegal, and because the state had failed to show that the crime charged in the indictment had been committed. The question is whether these were...