Cooper v. State
Decision Date | 21 May 1889 |
Citation | 86 Ala. 610,6 So. 110 |
Parties | COOPER v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; SAMUEL E. GREENE Judge.
Will Cooper appeals from a conviction of burglary.
Rich. H. Fries and J G. Crews, for appellant.
W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prisoner was arrested on a charge of burglary, without a warrant, and by the proprietor of the dwelling alleged to have been burglariously entered. The burglar had been discovered at a late hour of the night, walking within the house, and in his stocking feet. Being pursued, he fled, and made his escape. The night was rainy, and the ground muddy. Escaping, the burglar ran across the hall-way, which had a linen covering on the carpet. On this covering were left foot-stains; those made by the left foot being peculiar, and different from those made by the right. This was the testimony of the prosecuting witness. He testified, further, as follows:
The defendant asked the court to charge the jury that "the refusal of the defendant, if proven, to show a deformed foot to [the person who arrested him] on the night of the arrest cannot be considered as a circumstance against him, and such evidence is excluded from your consideration." This charge was refused, and defendant excepted.
Our constitution, art. 1, § 7, declares that the accused "shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself." The principle of this clause is common to the constitutions of this country. It doubtless had its birth in the abhorrence with which confessions coerced by inquisitorial torture were regarded alike in England and America. Courts have differed very widely in its interpretation. Perhaps its most learned and exhaustive discussion will be found in the able opinion of Mr. Justice BRADLEY in Boyd v. U. S., 116 U.S. 616, 6 S.Ct. 524. In the case of Stokes v. State, 5 Baxt. 619, the precise question we have in hand was presented, with the single exception that in that case the offer was made to the prisoner that he should make a track with his bare foot in the presence of the jury. The prisoner declined to do so. The trial court permitted this offer to be made in the presence of the jury, against the objection of the accused, but instructed the jury not to regard the prisoner's refusal as evidence against him. The revising court, considering this case, said: See same case in 30 Amer. Rep. 72.
The principle of the decision from which we have quoted is that it would have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Banks v. State
...of the court would have been an invasion of the constitutional immunity *** referred to." Williams v. State, 98 Ala. 52, 13 So. 333; Cooper v. State, supra; Clarke v. State, 78 Ala. 474, 480, 56 Am. Rep. 45. Such pronouncements of the extent of the constitutional privilege would not prevent......
-
Hubbard v. State
...against him. Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 82, 122 So.2d 360, quoted with approval Hunt v. State, 248 Ala. 217, 27 So.2d 186; Cooper v. State, 86 Ala. 610, 6 So. 110; Myhand v. State, 259 Ala. 415, 66 So.2d It may appear that these holdings are incompatible and are equivalent to legal hair-s......
-
Hill v. State
...between testimonial evidence and physical evidence. Any evidence forced from a defendant violated the privilege. In Cooper v. State, 86 Ala. 610, 6 So. 110 (1889), the Supreme Court held a defendant could not be compelled to make a footprint, since it was "unlawful to force the witness to g......
-
Elliott v. State
...938-939 (1902) (relying on cases applying self-incrimination privilege to bar results from compulsory physical exam); Cooper v. State, 86 Ala. 610, 6 So. 110, 111 (1889) (Alabama constitution made it "unlawful to force the witness to give (or make) evidence against himself," and state could......
-
Self-incrimination - what can an accused person be compelled to do?
...defendant was "in custody" at the time, rendered the evidence inadmissible, even though there was no express objection; Cooper v. State, 86 Ala. 610, 6 So. 110 (1889); State v. Griffin, 129 S. C. 200, 124 S. E. 81, 35 A. L. R. 1227 (1924). It is interesting to note that in Lipes v. State, 8......