Caddell v. State

• Decision Date: 19 April 1901
• Citation: 129 Ala. 57,30 So. 76
• Parties: CADDELL v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

30 So. 76

129 Ala. 57

CADDELL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 19, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Bibb county; John Moore, Judge.

Festus Caddell was jointly indicted with another for the murder of his wife. On motion of the defendants, a severance was had and the defendant in the present case was tried separately was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to be hanged, and appeals. Reversed.

The court ordered that 50 persons be drawn as special jurors to serve in said cause, and that said special jurors so drawn and the regular jurors for the week in which the case was set for trial be served upon the defendant. When the case was called for trial, the defendant moved the court to quash the venire upon the ground that 50 persons, together with the regular jurors drawn and summoned for the week of the trial were not contained on the venire served on the defendant, as required by the order of the court, but only 49 persons' names were contained on said venire. Upon the hearing of this motion it was shown that on the venire, a copy of which had been served on the defendant, there were contained the two names "A. F. Blake, farmer, beat 9," and "Acey Blake, farmer, beat 9." It was shown that when the name of A. F. Blake was drawn and called he appeared, and, after being examined as to his competency, he was challenged for cause. After several other names had been drawn, called, and examined, Acey Blake was drawn and called. In response thereto the same person who had answered to the name of A. F Blake responded. In answer to questions propounded to him by the court, said person stated that his name was Acey Blake that he was usually called Acey Blake; that the sheriff had served the summons for Acey Blake on him, and there was no other person residing in beat 9 named Acey Blake, but that another man named Acey Blake had lived in beat 9 until about 12 months prior to that time, when the said person named Acey Blake had moved out of beat 9 and moved to beat 10, where he was now living. Including the name of Acey Blake, the venire served upon the defendant contained the full number required by the order of the court, while excluding that name it was one short. The court overruled the motion to quash the venire, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted. The state introduced the physician who attended the deceased Mamie Caddell, who testified that she died on May 29, 1900, from a wound inflicted by a pistol ball. Thereupon A. P. Davidson was introduced as a witness for the state, and, upon his testifying that he knew the defendant, he was asked the following question: "Did you ever know the defendant to make any threats against Mamie Caddell?" The defendant objected to this question because the corpus delicti had not been proven, and because the defendant had not been shown to be in any way connected with the killing of Mamie Caddell. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. In answer to this question the witness, among other things, testified that in talking with the defendant in reference to the conduct of one Thomas towards Mrs. Gardner, who was jointly indicted with the defendant, and upon the witness telling the defendant he was going to get into trouble about Mrs. Gardner, the defendant replied: "'I don't give a d_____.' That he would kill anybody that interfered with him and that woman." The defendant duly objected to this part of the witness' testimony, and moved to exclude it from the jury. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. Mrs. Mulkey, a witness for the state, testified that Mamie Caddell, who was the wife of the defendant, was her daughter; that she and the defendant were married in April, 1899; that she was at the house of the defendant in January, 1900. The bill of exceptions then states the further testimony of this witness as follows: "Mrs. Gardner was there. She was there every time I was there subsequent to the preceding September. Defendant and Mamie lived happily and agreeably together until Mrs. Gardner went there. (Defendant objected to this last statement, and moved to exclude it. The court overruled the motion, and defendant excepted.) After Mrs. Gardner went there, I would often see Mamie crying when I was with her. (Defendant objected to this statement, and moved to exclude it. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant excepted.)" This witness (Mrs. Mulkey) also testified, against the objection and exception of the defendant, to having seen acts of undue and improper intimacy between the defendant and Mrs. Gardner while they were in the defendant's house, and that the deceased came into the room on one occasion and saw the defendant and Mrs. Gardner sitting together, with their arms around each other. Several of the witnesses introduced for the state testified, against the objection and exception of the defendant, to having heard the defendant make threats against his wife, Mamie Caddell, and to having heard him tell her that he was going to kill her. Against the objection and exception of the defendant, the state also proved that Mamie Caddell, the deceased, had commenced a prosecution against Mrs. Gardner for living in adultery with the defendant, by making an affidavit before a justice of the peace, upon which affidavit a warrant was issued. This affidavit and warrant were also introduced in evidence against the objection and exception of the defendant. On the part of the defendant there was evidence introduced to show that Mrs. Gardner was insane. In rebuttal the state introduced one Dr. Meadows, who testified that he had been a practicing physician for 17 years, and had known Mrs. Gardner for more than a year, and had attended her professionally when she was sick, and had seen her frequently. This witness testified that he had never seen any indications of insanity in her. In answer to the question asked him by the defendant on cross-examination, he said that he had never made a special study of insanity, and knew very little about it. Thereupon the defendant moved to exclude the statement of the witness that he had never seen any indications of insanity in Mrs. Gardner, upon the ground that he was not an expert. The court refused the motion, and the defendant duly excepted. J. W. McMaster, a witness for the state, examined in rebuttal, after testifying that he had known Mrs. Gardner for more than a year, had acted as her attorney and attended to her business, and had seen her very often, and had talked with her on various occasions and various subjects, then stated that: "She is sane. I never saw any insanity in her." The defendant moved ...