Coffey v. State

• Decision Date: 03 June 1943
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 193.
• Citation: 244 Ala. 514,14 So.2d 122
• Parties: COFFEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So.2d 122

244 Ala. 514

COFFEY v. STATE.

8 Div. 193.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 3, 1943

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1943.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Schuyler H. Richardson Judge.

Grounds 16 and 17 of the motion for new trial are as follows:

"16. The Special prosecutor for the State in his closing argument said to the jury: 'This community would be shocked unless you bring in a verdict giving this defendant the death penalty in this case.'

"17. The special prosecutor in his closing argument for the State said this to the Jury: 'The community expects you to give this defendant the death penalty."'

Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellant.

Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.

LAWSON, Justice.

The appellant was indicted for the murder of Dr. James W. Walker. He was convicted of murder in the first degree and was sentenced to suffer the death penalty. He interposed pleas of "not guilty" and "not guilty by reason of insanity."

That he killed Dr. James E. Walker is without contradiction in the evidence. The fact that the indictment stated the middle initial of deceased to be "W" whereas the proof showed it to be "E" is not material. The law knows but one Christian name and the insertion, omission, or misstatement of the middle name or initial of the defendant or the injured party in an indictment is immaterial. Pace and Cox v. State, 69 Ala. 231, 44 Am.Rep. 513.

The appellant at the time of the homicide was a comparatively uneducated cotton-mill worker about twenty-nine years of age. He is a married man and the father of two children, one of them a girl about nine years of age and the other a little boy about three years of age. The deceased was a practicing physician in Huntsville, Madison County, Alabama, who had been practicing in that locality for many years. The deceased had been administering to the appellant's small son, who had a broken leg, for two or three weeks prior to the time of the homicide.

The evidence shows without dispute that on Friday morning, March 6, 1942, the appellant left his home and went to the business section of Lincoln Village, a small community situated a few miles distant from Huntsville. He there purchased a pistol and ammunition from a man whom he had not previously known for the sum of $8, $5 of which he had borrowed from the operator of a store in that community. Within a short time after purchasing the pistol, he talked to the deceased over the telephone, requesting him to either meet appellant at his home or at the store from which the call was made. The appellant had been drinking during the morning, but there is no contention here made that the evidence shows him to have been drunk. After the call to Dr. Walker had been completed the appellant remained in the store from which the call had been placed, from which point he saw Dr. Walker travelling in his automobile in the direction of appellant's home. John Coffey, a brother of appellant, was sitting in his car in front of the store at the time Dr. Walker passed. At the request of appellant, John drove him to his home. Dr. Walker had already arrived there and was in the house when appellant and his brother arrived. John Coffey remained in the car while the appellant went into the house, where he forced Dr. Walker at the point of the pistol to return to the car occupied by John Coffey. There he accused the deceased of having had intercourse with his wife and of having performed illegal operations (abortions) on her. Dr. Walker was on the back seat of the car, while the appellant was on the front seat with his brother. Within a short time the car with its three occupants proceeded to a point approximately 300 yards from the house, where the appellant continued to accuse the deceased of improper relations with his wife. While the appellant was directing the accusations at the deceased, he kept him covered with the pistol and when the deceased denied the accusations, the appellant attempted to hit him with the pistol whereupon the deceased knocked the pistol from appellant's hand, but was unable to prevent appellant from recovering it. Shortly thereafter the parties returned to the home of appellant. He forced Dr. Walker to again enter the house. After entering the house they proceeded to the kitchen, where they were joined by Victoria Coffey, the wife of appellant, and his aunt, Mrs. Tommie Coffey. The conversation or argument between appellant and Dr. Walker with reference to the alleged abortions and with reference to the charge of illicit relationship with appellant's wife continued and finally reached a point where the appellant threw two skillets or frying pans at the deceased, both of which missed him. Appellant's wife and aunt implored him to discontinue his accusations and assaults upon the deceased, whereupon he fired one shot from the pistol, which struck Dr. Walker in the head, resulting in an injury from which he died two weeks later.

The appellant, although having entered a formal plea of "not guilty," testified in his own behalf and the facts as above related were admitted by him. The sole defense proposed by the evidence was that at the time the appellant committed the act he was insane. The appellant sought to trace his alleged insanity to the fact that he was laboring under the impression that the deceased had been unduly intimate with his wife. He testified that a short time before the day of the homicide his wife told him that the deceased had performed two abortions on her and that just two days before the date on which the fatal shooting occurred, he was present in the office of the deceased when the third abortion was performed; that he became suspicious of his wife and felt that the deceased would not have performed the illegal operations if he had not had illicit relations with his wife; that he had accused his wife of having an affair with the deceased but that she denied it; that he was so upset he could not sleep; that he and his wife were continually arguing about her relationship with the deceased; that he became moody, morose and intensely jealous.

The wife of appellant, testifying in his behalf, stated that on Sunday night some four or five days before the date of the homicide she admitted to her husband that the deceased had performed one abortion on her and that she told him at that time that it was necessary for another operation to be performed and that she intended to go to Dr. Walker within the next few days. She further testified that she did go to Dr. Walker on Wednesday, accompanied by her husband; that from the time she told her husband of the abortion he continued to accuse her of improper relations with the deceased. The evidence does not show, however, that she ever admitted having intercourse with the deceased. She stated that the appellant acted differently toward her after she told him about the illegal operation, having very little to say to her and seemed to have something "on his mind." On cross-examination this witness admitted that she made a statement on the day of the homicide relative to the conduct of her husband and her relationship with Dr. Walker. This statement, which was introduced in evidence, contains no reference to the fact that the witness had told her husband that the deceased had performed any illegal operations on her. It does show, however, that for about a week prior to the date on which the shooting occurred, appellant had tried to make his wife admit that Dr. Walker had made advances toward her but that she refused to admit any such conduct on his part because "he had always treated me like a lady, decent in every way."

Several witnesses testified to the effect that they had known the defendant for a long number of years and had had an opportunity to observe him immediately prior to the date of the homicide and that he appeared to have something on his mind; that he did not act right; that he looked like he was in a study about something; that he didn't work on his job like he ought to; that he would meet his friends in the street and not speak to them; that he seemed like he was restless and more nervous than he used to be.

The State, in rebuttal to this testimony, called a number of witnesses who also were closely associated with the appellant prior to the time of the homicide, who testified that the appellant appeared to be normal and that they had noticed nothing unusual about him.

The burden was on the appellant to prove, to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury, his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 36 So. 1012; Manning v. State, 217 Ala. 357, 116 So. 360; Boyle v. State, 229 Ala. 212, 154 So. 575; Section 422, Title 15, Code of Alabama 1940.

The rule of criminal responsibility under such a plea in this state was stated in the case of Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 854, and has been adhered to by this court in many cases. It is well understood and need not be here repeated. Wilkes v. State, 215 Ala. 428, 110 So. 908; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171; Hall v. State, 208 Ala. 199, 94 So. 59; Boyle v. State, supra.

The evidence as it relates to the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity falls far short of establishing the fact that appellant's mind was so affected as to render him unaccountable for his act. While there was some evidence tending to show that appellant was not in all respects in his normal mind at the time of the homicide, no verdict in agreement with the great weight of the evidence could have found anything more to the point than an expression of emotional insanity, for which there is no recognition in the law of this state as an excuse for crime. Parsons v. State supra; Wilkes v. State...