Chunn v. State

• Decision Date: 23 November 1976
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 865
• Citation: 339 So.2d 1100
• Parties: Bertha Mae CHUNN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 1100

339 So.2d 1100

Bertha Mae CHUNN v. STATE.

8 Div. 865.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 23, 1976.

Jeff D. Smith, Huntsville, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and Ellis D. Hanan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

LEIGH M. CLARK, Supernumerary Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree of Robert Howard Chunn. The evidence is undisputed that she shot him three times with a pistol, one bullet penetrating his chest and killing him. The evidence presented by the State, largely circumstantial, pointed almost conclusively to that conclusion; in taking the stand in her own defense, defendant admitted she killed him as indicated, but she stoutly claimed that she did so in self-defense. That there was strong evidence of some of the elements of self-defense, we have no doubt, but we are convinced that there was substantial evidence that not all of the essential elements of self-defense existed and that whether she was guilty of murder in the first degree was an issue for the determination of the jury. No contention is made by appellant to the contrary.

Although there was little conflict in most of the important portions of the evidence, the testimony undulated as to the exact legal status between defendant and the victim. They were referred to, and considered by some, as married, that is, they were common law husband and wife. They had been living together about eight years, during which time two children were born to them; she was the mother of three other children, who also were living with them at the time of the homicide. Both had been drinking the afternoon the killing occurred. There was evidence that she had threatened that afternoon, as well as on previous occasions, to kill him. She had been drinking, and there was evidence to indicate that he had been drinking. Immediately after the killing, she told one of her children to call the police and an ambulance. When the first police arrived a little after 4:00, defendant was sitting on the floor of the living room of their home with the victim's head in her lap. After the arrival of officers and the coroner, defendant was taken to the police station. There was considerable evidence that she was intoxicated at the time she was questioned and given the Miranda warning and informed in minute detail of her rights. Thereafter, she signed a written statement, in her own handwriting that she had composed, in which she admitted the killing under circumstances substantially in accordance with her testimony on the trial.

Appellant contends that her confession should not have been admitted in evidence, due to the state of her intoxication and that 'Without the admission of the statements of the Defendant, the State may not have been able to make out a prima facie case, thereby rendering the Defendant's testimony unnecessary.' We think the evidence at the time the State closed its testimony was sufficient to make out a prima facie case against defendant, but even so, the extent of her intoxication at the time of her confession affects the question of the admissibility thereof, and if the confession was erroneously admitted, it could be a sufficient basis for a reversal.

Although there can be little doubt that appellant was intoxicated to some extent, we cannot say that she was intoxicated to such an extent that she did not fully understand what she was doing and saying. The accuracy of the statements she made in her confession, as shown by other undisputed evidence in the case, and the composure she manifested in her explanation of what occurred, and her putting an account thereof in her own deliberate handwriting, negate any mania that would make her confession inadmissible. We continue to adhere to what was held in Anderson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 653, 235 So.2d 902, 905, as follows:

'The rule is well established in this jurisdiction that intoxication short of mania or such an impairment of the will and mind as to make the person confessing unconscious of the meaning of his words will not render a confession inadmissible. Warren v. State, 44 Ala.App. 221, 205 So.2d 916, cert. denied 281 Ala. 725, 205 So.2d 920; Ray v. State, 39 Ala.App. 257, 97 So.2d 594; Smith v. State, 25 Ala.App. 297, 145 So. 504; Eskridge v. State, 25 Ala. 30.'

To the same effect are Edwards v. State, 56 Ala.App. 405, 321 So.2d 744; Patterson v. State, 56 Ala.App. 359, 321 So.2d 698; Woods v. State, 54 Ala.App. 591, 310 So.2d 891.

Two photographs, a profile and a front view, of defendant taken at the jail the night of the homicide were introduced in evidence over the objection of defendant. There is no material difference between the parties on appeal as to the applicable principles of the law of evidence. A photograph is admissible if it tends to prove or disprove some disputed or material issue, if it tends to shed light on, to strengthen, or to illustrate other testimony in the case. Knight v. State, 273 Ala. 480, 142 So.2d 899; Fletcher v. State, 291 Ala. 67, 277 So.2d 882; Smith v. State, 56 Ala.App. 609, 324 So.2d 323; Johnson v. State, 56 Ala.App. 583, 324 So.2d 298, cert. denied, Ala., 324 So.2d 305.

As indicated above, the defendant on the trial presented an issue whether defendant was so intoxicated at the time of her inculpatory statements at the jail that her admissions should not have been admitted in evidence. There was considerable testimony taken on that subject. The two photographs were contained in one print and referred to during the trial as a 'photograph,' and not 'photographs,' and offered as a single exhibit. During the testimony of Detective Petty, who testified as to his interview with her in which she had made the incriminating statements referred to hereinabove, the following occurred:

'Q Detective Petty, does that photograph substantially and accurately depict this defendant as she appeared to you on that date?

'A Yes, sir.

'MR. MORGAN: Your Honor, the State would offer Exhibit 18 into evidence.

'MR. MORRIS: We object unless they cut out that portion that has mug shot on it.

'THE COURT: Overrule.

'MR. MORRIS: Has no probative value.

'THE COURT: Overrule. Ladies and gentlemen, in this case State's Exhibit 18, I am allowing that to be admitted into evidence in the case and submitted for your consideration only on the point of the condition of the defendant at the time of making the alleged statement and not...