Canty v. State
| Citation | 238 Ala. 384,191 So. 260 |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 293. |
| Parties | CANTY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1939.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Eugene W. Carter Judge.
Dave Canty was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
E. W Wadsworth, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Alex C. Birch, of Montgomery, amicus curiae.
Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Wm. N. McQueen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment, trial and conviction were for murder in the first degree.
The indictment on which appellant was tried was in the following language: "The Grand Jury of said County charge, that before the finding of this indictment Dave Canty, unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, killed Eunice Ward by beating or cutting her with some instrument, a further description of which is to the grand jury unknown, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama."
Said indictment was sufficient under the Code form. It averred that "some instrument" was employed in beating or cutting Eunice Ward, causing her death and that "a further description" of the same was unknown to the grand jury. This was the required averment in an indictment when the particularity or definition of the instrument employed, in consummation of the crime charged, was unknown. Code, § 4556, form 76; Sims v. State, 176 Ala. 14, 58 So. 379; Wilson v. State, 84 Ala. 426, 4 So. 383; Hornsby v. State, 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522; Smith v. State, 142 Ala. 14, 39 So. 329; King v. State, 137 Ala. 47, 34 So. 683.
For convenience, we will try to follow defendant's counsel in his presentation to this Court of arguments as to the several objections and assignments of error.
Hattie Howard, a witness for the state, testified of statements voluntarily made to her as a "fortune teller" by the defendant and was cross-examined as follows:
Such cross-examination was largely in the discretion of the trial judge.
In this ruling of the trial court there was no undue limitation of the right of cross-examination as to a matter not shown to be relevant and material.
Mr. Chancellor testified for the state that the statements made by defendant were voluntary; that he examined him while confined at Kilby and, among other things, said:
In this examination, and statements of the witness to which exceptions were reserved, and in the rulings of the court thereon, no reversible error intervened. So of the testimony of Dennison, Wilson, Rapport, Lindsey, Stearns and Carlisle. Fincher v. State, 211 Ala. 388, 393, 100 So. 657; Burns v. State, 226 Ala. 117, 145 So. 436; 85 A.L.R. 872; 102 A.L.R. 608.
It is established in this jurisdiction that confessions are presumed involuntary and prima facie inadmissible, and the burden is upon the state to show they were voluntary. Jackson v. State, 226 Ala. 72, 145 So. 656; Fincher v. State, 211 Ala. 388, 100 So. 657; McCullars v. State, 208 Ala. 182, 94 So. 55.
The several written confessions offered in evidence are as follows:
The latter confession was witnessed by several parties, one of whom was the Witness Chancellor.
We have examined the evidence touching the nature of the several confessions, and hold that they were voluntary and duly admissible.
Colonel William P. Screws, a witness for the state, testified to his having charge of the investigation and handling of the evidence against defendant. Colonel Screws stated that he sent Dennison, Chancellor, Stearns and Dr. Nixon out to investigate the charge against the defendant; that he (defendant) was not held exactly incommunicado, but nobody was allowed to see him; that defendant asked to see his mother and was told that the request would be acceded to; that defendant's mother was one of the first persons arrested with others "in connection with the crime." The record then recites:
The foregoing was a pertinent inquiry which affected the identification of defendant in connection with evidence given that the man in question wore a cap and was seen as he ran. Public officials had the right to take such reasonable means as the wearing of a cap and requesting defendant to run for the purpose of identification, which he did without objection, and such was competent under the evidence given by the Masonic Home boys. Crenshaw v. State, 225 Ala. 346, 142 So. 669; Orr v. State, 236 Ala. 462, 183 So. 445.
In this action of the trial court there was no error.
The same witness (Daniels) was cross-examined, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
...averment 'or other weapon' insufficiently describes the means used, and rendered the indictment demurrable." See, also, Canty v. State, 238 Ala. 384, 191 So. 260. Westmoreland v. United States, 155 U.S. 545, 15 S.Ct. 243, 245, 39 L.Ed. 255, which involved the sufficiency of the indictment i......
-
Davis v. State
...Texas, 309 U.S. 631, 60 S.Ct. 706, 84 L.Ed. 989 (139 Tex.Cr.R. 660, 128 S.W.2d 51, 141 S.W.2d 951). Canty v. Alabama, 309 U.S. 629, 60 S.Ct. 612, 84 L.Ed. 988 (238 Ala. 384, 191 So. 260). Lomax v. Texas, 313 U.S. 544, 61 S.Ct. 956, 85 L.Ed. 1511 (142 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 144 S.W.2d 555). Vernon v......
-
Holland v. Donnelly
...nearly half-century old case consists of just two words, "Judgment reversed," and a pair of citations: "See Canty v. Alabama, 309 U.S. 629, 60 S.Ct. 612, 84 L.Ed. 988 [(1940)], and Vernon v. Alabama, 313 U.S. 547, 61 S.Ct. 1092, 85 L.Ed. 1513 [(1941)]." Canty and Vernon, in turn, are equall......
-
Ellis v. State
... ... 476; Moulton v. State, 199 Ala ... 411, 74 So. 454; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36-43, ... 95 So. 171; American Ry. Express Co. v. Reid, 216 ... Ala. 479, 113 So. 507; Bachelor v. State, 216 Ala ... 356, 113 So. 67; Bridges v. State, 225 Ala. 81, 124 ... So. 56-61; Canty v. State, 238 Ala. 384, 191 so ... 260; Peterson v. State, 231 Ala. 625, 166 So. 20; ... Kennedy v. State, 237 Ala. 359, 186 So. 453; ... Provident Life, etc., v. Downey, 242 Ala. 482, 7 ... So.2d 17; Alabama Power Co. v. Goodwin, 210 Ala ... 657, 99 So. 158 ... In ... ...