Caraway v. State
| Decision Date | 18 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 1000. |
| Citation | 20 Ala.App. 362,101 So. 912 |
| Parties | CARAWAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
John Caraway was convicted of possessing a still, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Ballard & Brassell, of Troy, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of the possession of a still or apparatus to be used for manufacturing prohibited liquors.
Confessions are prima facie involuntary, and before they can be received in evidence it must be shown to the court that they were voluntarily made. Newman v. State, 49 Ala. 9; Kelly v. State, 72 Ala. 244; Redd v. State, 69 Ala. 255; Young v. State, 68 Ala. 569; Washington v. State, 106 Ala. 61, 17 So. 546; Stone v. State, 105 Ala. 60, 17 So. 114; 1 Mayf Dig. p. 206, par. 5.
State witness Dunn after testifying that the defendant made a statement to him was asked by the solicitor for the state the following question:
"Before he [defendant] made that statement, did either one of you, or did anybody in the crowd, offer him any inducement or make any threats toward him to get him to make that statement?"
Objection was interposed by the defendant to the question, and exception reserved to the action of the court in overruling the objection.
When a confession is offered in evidence against a defendant in a criminal trial it is the duty of the court to determine, upon consideration of the condition, situation, and character of the prisoner and the circumstances under which it was made whether or not such confession was voluntary. Beckham v. State, 100 Ala. 15, 14 So. 859. The preliminary question satisfied the judgment of the trial court of the relevancy and competency of the confession offered, and that it was free and voluntary and the court so declared by its ruling. Where no threats are made or inducements offered, the confessions are admissible. Newell v. State, 115 Ala. 54, 22 So. 572; 1 Mayf. Dig. p. 209, par. 16.
When confessions have been admitted in evidence over the objection of the defendant, the presumption is in favor of the correctness of the trial court's ruling on appeal, and the appellate court will not reverse on account of the admission of such evidence unless the record affirmatively shows that there was manifest error in its admission. Fincher v. State (Ala. Sup.) 100 So. 657; Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239, 82 So. 489; McCullars v. State, 208 Ala. 182, 94 So. 55; McKinney v. State, 134 Ala. 139, 32 So. 726; Goodwin v. State, 102 Ala. 99, 15 So. 571. The court did not err in overruling defendant's objection to the question propounded to the witness Dunn.
After proper predicate laid, it was competent for the state to show the entire confession of the defendant relating to the commission of the crime and his guilty connection therewith.
When there is proof prima facie sufficient to establish the existence of a conspiracy to commit a crime, the acts and declarations of one conspirator in furtherance of the common design to commit the crime are a part of the res gestæ, and the act of all the conspirators and evidence of such acts and declarations is admissible against all. Hunter v. State, 112 Ala. 77, 21 So. 65; McAnally v. State, 74 Ala. 9.
The court did not err in admitting evidence of the acts of Cody Coggins, a coindictee with the defendant, and one of the men found with the defendant operating the stills, such acts being in furtherance of the commission of the crime with which the defendant was charged, and being part of the res gestæ. It was likewise competent for the state, after proper predicate laid, to show the confession made to witnesses Pittman and Baskin.
Under an indictment charging the possession of a still, the corpus delicti is proven when there is evidence that the defendant was found operating a still containing mash from which whisky is made, although no whisky had commenced running from the still during that operation. The evidence of operation of the still by the defendant was sufficient to submit to the jury upon the question of the defendant's control or dominion over the still, and his possession thereof.
After proof of the corpus delicti confessions are admissible. In the instant case there was proof of the corpus delicti before the confession was offered in evidence.
Charges 3 and 4 refused to defendant were the general affirmative charge for the defendant. The refusal was not error as there was a conflict...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State, 5 Div. 357
...transaction.' See also, Smith v. State, 52 Ala. 407; Griffin v. State, 229 Ala. 482, 158 So. 316; Ganus v. State, supra; Caraway v. State, 20 Ala.App. 362, 101 So. 912; Whigham v. State, 20 Ala.App. 129, 101 So. 98; Roberts v. State, 22 Ala.App. 178, 114 So. The evidence which we have delin......
-
Singleton v. State
... ... causing the crime. Thus viewed the above doctrine in nowise ... conflicts with the basic principle that an accused's ... confession is not admissible until the corpus delicti has ... been proved. Pierson v. State, 16 Ala.App. 197, 76 ... So. 487; Caraway v. State, 20 Ala.App. 362, 101 So ... 912; Young v. State, 22 Ala.App. 436, 116 So. 507; ... Morris v. State, 23 Ala.App. 255, 123 So. 280 ... Mr ... Grubbs, the State Toxicologist, testified that from his tests ... he concluded that the baby in this case had breathed. As to ... ...
-
Smith v. State
... ... v. State, 145 Miss. 116; Beaird v. State, 109 So ... 77, 20 Ala. 176 ... The ... court is required to consider the condition, situation, and ... character of defendant and circumstances under which ... confession was made in determining its character ... Caraway ... v. State, 101 So. 912, 20 Ala. 362 ... W. D ... Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the state ... The ... trial court ruled that on the matter of whether or not the ... defendant was too drunk to know what he was saying, it was a ... question for the jury to ... ...
-
Bohannon v. State, 6 Div. 922.
...the confessions was irregular, and, at the time of admission, erroneous, but does not entitle defendant to a reversal. Caraway v. State, 20 Ala. App. 362, 101 So. 912. questions presented are without merit. The question of the signing of the mortgage, the raising of the cotton, the ownershi......