Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 02 February 1899
• Citation: 120 Ala. 342,25 So. 182
• Parties: BROWN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

25 So. 182

120 Ala. 342

BROWN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 2, 1899

Appeal from city court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.

William Brown was convicted of robbery, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant, William Brown, was tried under the following indictment: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, William Brown feloniously took one two-dollar United States treasury note and thirteen dollars in the silver coin of the United States a further description of which is to the grand jury unknown the property of Jasper Hicks from his person, and against his will, by violence to his person, or by putting him in such fear as unwillingly to part with the same, against the peace," etc. The defendant was convicted of the offense charged and sentenced to be hanged. The indictment was presented July 23, 1898. On November 4, 1898, the defendant was arraigned and the day set for his trial, and a special venire was ordered summoned and a list of the names of the several jurors to be served on the defendant. The minute entry of this arraignment and order of the court contained the following recital: "And defendant acknowledges in open court that he has heretofore been served with a copy of the indictment in this case." The judgment entry of the defendant's conviction recited that the defendant, did on November 4, 1898, acknowledge in open court and at the former term of the court, that he had been duly served with a copy of the indictment.

Before entering upon the trial, the defendant moved the court to quash the venire, because a copy of the indictment had not been served upon the defendant according to law. The court overruled this motion, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted.

The state introduced as a witness Jasper Hicks, the man alleged to have been robbed, who testified that on the evening of April 29, 1898, as he was going home along one of the streets in the city of Montgomery, he was knocked down by a severe blow on his head and rendered insensible; that at the time he was struck he had on his person $27 altogether, having in his pocketbook a $2 bill and several receipts for money paid out by witness, and in his pocket he had 13 silver $1 pieces, and in another pocket he had the balance of the money; that the pocketbook containing the $2 bill, and the 13 silver dollars were taken. Upon being shown a $2 bill, the witness stated that he recognized the bill as the one which had been in the pocketbook at the time he was robbed. The bill had a piece torn out of one corner, and the presiding judge asked the witness if at the time he was robbed the bill was torn in the same way, to which the witness replied that it was. The witness also examined the receipts and testified that they were the same that were in his pocketbook at the time he was robbed. Prior to the examination of this witness, the state had introduced as a witness the physician who had sewed up the wound inflicted upon Jasper Hicks, and this witness testified as to the character of the wound. Upon further examination of J. H. Hicks as a witness, he was asked the following question: "What has been the effect upon you of this assault?" The defendant objected to this question, on the ground that it called for illegal and irrelevant evidence. The court overruled the objection and the defendant duly excepted. The witness in answer to the question testified that he was sick for some time afterwards that he had been permanently affected by the blow, in that his sense of smell and taste had been impaired; that he has a dizzy feeling when he goes to get up, and that when he stoops over he has a feeling like vertigo; and none of these affections he had before he was struck. The defendant moved to exclude this answer from the jury, on the ground that such testimony was illegal and irrelevant and had no connection with the issue involved in this case. The court overruled this motion, and the defendant duly excepted. This witness on cross-examination, testified that he was a witness before the grand jury and that during his examination before the grand jury he stated to them that the money taken from him was the $2 bill referred to and $13 in silver money, and that the receipts and pocketbook and the $2 bill were all exhibited to him while being examined as a witness before the grand jury. The witness was asked by the defendant if any one else than the defendant was suspected of the robbery. The solicitor objected to this question, which objection the court sustained, and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the examination of the two special officers of the police department of the city of Montgomery, they each testified to facts which traced the possession of the $2 bill identified as being in the possession of Jasper Hicks at the time of the robbery to the defendant William Brown, just after the robbery. They each also testified that the defendant told them, when together, how he had disposed of said $2 bill, and to other statements by the defendant in which he incriminated himself. The defendant objected to each of these statements upon the ground that what the defendant said by way of an admission or confession was not shown to have been voluntary and the evidence was illegal and inadmissible. Thereupon the solicitor for the state asked each of the witnesses, on their separate examinations, if he had offered any inducement or made any promises or threats to the defendant to cause him to tell what the witness testified to. Upon each of the witnesses answering that he had offered no inducement and made no promises or threats to the defendant, the court overruled each of the objections of the defendant and to these rulings the defendant separately excepted.

The state offered in evidence the two-dollar bill which as recited in the bill of exceptions "was a two-dollar United States treasury note, and which had been exhibited to the different witnesses"; and the state also offered the receipts which the witness Hicks testified were in the pocketbook at the time he was robbed. The defendant objected to the introduction of the two-dollar bill and these receipts, upon the ground of variance from the paper described in the indictment. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Upon the cross-examination of several of the witnesses introduced for the state, the defendant asked the said witnesses if any one else had been suspected of the robbery with which the defendant was charged. To each of such questions the solicitor objected, upon the grounds interposed to similar questions, as set out above, the court sustained each of such objections, and the defendant separately excepted.

Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (a) "If the jury find from the evidence that the property stolen was money in a pocketbook which pocketbook also contained receipts and other papers even of nominal value to the owner, which papers were also stolen, and the indictment specifies only the following property: one two-dollar United States treasury note and thirteen dollars in the silver coin of the United States,...