Crumbley v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1933
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 273.
• Citation: 26 Ala.App. 24,152 So. 55
• Parties: CRUMBLEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

152 So. 55

26 Ala.App. 24

CRUMBLEY v. STATE.

6 Div. 273.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 30, 1933

Rehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; W. W. Callahan, Judge.

Armnis Crumbley was convicted of arson in the second degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Crumbley v. State, 152 So. 57.

Griffith & Griffith and St. John & St. John, all of Cullman, for appellant.

Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD Judge.

The question of merit in this case is whether there is to be found in the evidence sufficient corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice who admits the crime and testified on the trial that he was instigated to commit the offense by this defendant. Ance Cochran testified that on Sunday night September 13, 1931, he set fire to and burned the gin house and mill of J. B. Elrod & Son, in Cullman county, Ala., and that he did it at the instance of this defendant, who agreed to pay him for the act $10 in cash and to gin his cotton crop for the year 1931 free of charge. Through a long direct and cross examination this witness tells the story of his crime and defendant's connection with it. The examination evidences the mind of a criminal moron, which fact is further emphasized by an unbroken line of witnesses who, although Cochran is only twenty years of age, testify to his general bad character and character for truth extending for several years back. So impressive are the above facts, and especially in view of the proven general good character of defendant, a court might well hesitate to permit a verdict to stand, based alone on his testimony.

In this case, however, the statute prescribes the necessity of corroboration. A conviction for felony cannot be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense; and such corroborative evidence, if it merely shows the commission of the offense, or the circumstances thereof, is not sufficient. Code 1923, § 5635.

The two points of corroboration insisted on by the state are:

(1) The gin of Elrod & Son was new, the building being not quite complete. The machinery had just been installed, and on Wednesday or Thursday in the daytime, before the gin was burned Sunday night, Cochran and defendant were at the gin and were seen in conversation, about the center of the house. On that day a good many people came in to see the new gin and outfit. At the time defendant and Cochran were at the gin there were some forty others there looking around at the new machinery.

Under some circumstances, proximity and opportunity are held to be sufficient evidence in corroboration of an accomplice. Ross v. State, 74 Ala. 532. But the presence of defendant at the gin three or four days before the arson in the daytime and with many others present cannot be taken as evidence tending to connect defendant with the crime, unless there was evidence other than the testimony of the accomplice tending to prove that defendant's presence at the gin was other than for a lawful purpose. Lindsey v. State, 170 Ala. 80, 54 So. 516.

(2) The evidence for the state tended to prove that on Tuesday after the Monday when Cochran was arrested and confined in jail this defendant went to the home of J. W. Cochran and stated that he had been to the jail, had tried to see Cochran, and had been denied admittance. At this meeting defendant evinced deep emotion and anxiety to the extent of weeping while he talked to the father. Defendant sought to induce the father to go to see his son in jail, and offered to pay for the gasoline necessary to make the trip, and the father was instructed to say to his son: "To keep quiet, that we will get him out." This unusual activity on the part of defendant in undertaking to reach Cochran and his extreme anxiety...