Bridges v. State

• Decision Date: 26 May 1932
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 10.
• Parties: BRIDGES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

142 So. 56

225 Ala. 81

BRIDGES v. STATE.

6 Div. 10.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 26, 1932

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John P. McCoy, Judge.

R. A Bridges was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Crampton Harris and Albert Boutwell, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

KNIGHT J.

The appellant, R. A. Bridges, was indicted for the offense of murder in the first degree. A copy of the indictment appears in the report of the case. The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment fixed by the jury at imprisonment in the penitentiary of this state for the term of his natural life. From this conviction and sentence, the present appeal is prosecuted.

It appears from the bill of exceptions that on the evening of July 10, 1931, a bomb, made of twenty-five sticks of dynamite, wrapped in a newspaper, was thrown through or against a glass window of the plant of the Pure Milk Company located at 2416 Avenue G in the city of Birmingham, Ala. At that time, there were a number of people in the building. The frontage of the plant on Avenue G is ninety feet. The building used and occupied by the Sunshine Dry Cleaners is west of the Pure Milk Company's plant, and the building occupied by the Lincoln Motor Car Company is located to the east.

George D. Hennigh, one of the witnesses examined by the state, on the trial, testified, as to what occurred immediately following the explosion of the bomb, as follows: "I was in and about the plant on the night of July 10, 1931, when the explosion occurred. I heard a crash, and in a minute or a minute and a half the explosion occurred. I did not go outside. I stayed in my office. My office was about fifty feet east of the point of explosion. On a direct line west from where my office is located there is a brick wall, and to the right of that there was two glass doors. They were blown approximately twenty-five feet from where they were originally. We have two ammonia compressors in the room where the explosion occurred, and the two compressors have a capacity of around seventeen tons of refrigeration each, and the two machines were standing on blocks which are imbedded in the earth about four feet. They have a solid foundation; and there is also an ammonia drum there and about eight condensors, and there is also a cooling tower in that room to cool water that comes from the machine, and also two thirty-horse power motors, belts connecting the motors with the compressors. Practically all the plate glass of the building was blown out,-in fact the place was competely wrecked. There were seven of us altogether in the building. The sidewalk in front of the plant is about six feet. Avenue G is a very much traveled thoroughfare. *** Immediately after the explosion I got out of the office as quickly as I could and went towards where the compressing room was a total wreckage. I walked out to the sidewalk and saw two boys about ten feet from the curbing dressed in white. I ran over to help them on the sidewalk, and then some of the boys were coming out of the office and a crowd was running toward them, and they came and took the boys off, and I turned around and saw this little negro boy laying there with his insides blown completely out. I did not know his name. I did not see the boys removed."

Burg Gilpin testified that he made the bomb, and drove the car in which defendant and he went to the plant of the Pure Milk Company on the occasion the bomb was thrown. That they carried the bomb in the car, and that defendant threw the bomb against the window and into the window. That as soon as the bomb was thrown, the defendant immediately came back to the car and drove off.

John Ferrell McAvoy also testified in behalf of the estate, and it appears from his testimony that the bomb was made in the evening of July 10, 1931, and was put in his car. That the defendant carried the bomb and put it in his (witness') car, and then he, defendant and Mrs. Cline went to town (Birmingham) in his car; that they put him out at Ritz Billiard parlor. That his car was a blue Chevrolet coach, 1930 model.

From the evidence, it would appear that both Gilpin and McAvoy were accomplices in the bombing of the Pure Milk Company's plant, and hence the defendant could not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of these two witnesses. However, other witnesses, testifying on behalf of the state, corroborated the evidence of the alleged accomplices, and their testimony tended to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. In fact, one witness, Ada Lance, who was at the time working for Sunshine Dry Cleaning Company testified: "I saw R. A. Bridges at or near the Pure Milk Plant, on the night of the explosion. He was standing on the sidewalk in front of the Pure Milk Company, I was standing in the window of the Sunshine Cleaners. I was looking to my left towards the Pure Milk Company. I saw a man walk up and throw a package into the Pure Milk Company. That man sitting back there threw the package [indicating defendant]. *** The package was thrown through the glass next to the Sunshine Cleaners. Immediately before I saw the man throw the package, I saw an automobile pull up in front of the Pure Milk Plant. It was a five passenger dark Chevrolet car. There was a man got out of it and went to the sidewalk. They stopped the car in front of the Pure Milk Company. I saw R. A. Bridges throw a package in the Pure Milk Company. It was a large brown looking package. *** When the package got about half way to the building there was a little blaze at the end of it. It was just a tiny blaze of fire behind the package."

This witness also testified that there were a number of people working in the building used by the Sunshine Dry Cleaners at the time of the explosion, and that the witness and one other girl in the Sunshine Dry Cleaners' establishment were hurt by the explosion.

The evidence showed that the deceased, Edward Francis Van Merkstyne, received fatal injury by the explosion of the dynamite bomb, and died as a result of the injuries on the following day.

The defendant was duly arraigned on July 25, 1931, and a due and proper order was made by the court setting the cause for trial on August 3, 1931. A proper order was also made, upon the arraignment, for a special venire of one hundred jurors to be summoned by the sheriff to serve as jurors in the case. It further appears that the court ordered "a list of the names of all jurors drawn for said week beginning Monday the 3rd day of August, 1931, together with those drawn upon this day, together with a copy of the indictment against each of the defendants be made, and the same to be forthwith served on each of the defendants by the sheriff" of Jefferson county. It also appears from the record that this order was fully executed by the sheriff on July 29, 1931. It thus appears that arraignment, setting of the day for trial, order for special venire, and the order for service of the venire and copy of the indictment, and service thereof by the sheriff, were in all respects regular.

After the jurors were qualified, it appeared that there remained only thirty-eight qualified to serve as jurors in the case. The defendant objected to being put on trial on the ground "that he was entitled to two strikes to the State's one," and the defendant further moved for a continuance on the ground that "a new venire should be summoned so that the quota could be completed." The court overruled the motion. This action of the court was eminently proper and within the terms of the statute. Code, § 8646; Riley v. State, 21 Ala. App. 655, 111 So. 649. To have drawn additional names of jurors, and placed them on the list, from which to strike the jury in the case, would have been erroneous. Fleming v. State, 20 Ala. App. 481, 104 So. 137; Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 213 Ala. 78, 104 So. 139.

After the selection of the jury, the defendant's attorney stated to the court that Mr. J. B. Fuqua, one of his witnesses, was ill, and that he was informed that the witness could not attend the trial, and defendant moved for a continuance on the ground that Mr. Fuqua was a material witness. No request was made by defendant that he be allowed to make a showing for his absent witness, or that he expected to make any proof by this witness that he was not prepared to make by other witnesses present. Nor did the defendant give the court the slightest intimation of what he expected to show by the witness. The court stated to counsel: "It may be that you have time now to take his testimony by deposition by the time you reach the case." To this counsel for defendant replied: "Well, it may be, but we want the jury-they have the right to see the demeanor of every witness. They are entitled to that right, and we would like for them to be able to see and hear Mr. Fuqua's testimony rather than to just have a deposition brought into court, and we move that the case be continued until such time that we can be sure of getting this evidence." The motion for a continuance, under the circumstances, was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not here be revised except for abuse of that discretion. No such abuse appears, and the appellant can take nothing by his exception to this ruling of the court. Alabama, etc., Co. v. Wrenn, 136 Ala. 490, 34 So. 970; Humes v. O'Bryan, 74 Ala. 78; Wimberly v. Windham, 104 Ala. 409, 16 So. 23, 53 Am. St. Rep. 70; Kroell v. State, 139 Ala. 1, 36 So. 1025; Stevens v. State, 138 Ala. 71, 35 So. 122; Huskey v. State, 129 Ala. 94, 29 So. 838.

The court permitted the solicitor to offer evidence to show or tending to show,...