Daugherty v. State
| Decision Date | 17 January 1939 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 67. |
| Citation | 28 Ala.App. 453,186 So. 780 |
| Parties | DAUGHERTY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1939.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; Will O. Walton, Judge.
Russell Daugherty was convicted of arson in the first degree, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
D. T Ware of Roanoke, for appellant.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Francis M Kohn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of arson in the first degree and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for an indeterminate term of from twelve to thirteen years i. e., of twelve years minimum and thirteen years maximum. Code 1928, Sec. 3289 (Gen. Acts Ala.1927, pp. 552, 553).
The bill of exceptions affirmatively shows that it does not contain all the evidence. Hence we forego a consideration of the refusal of the trial court to give to the jury the duly requested general affirmative charge to find in favor of the defendant (appellant). See Crow v. McKown, 192 Ala. 480, 68 So. 341, L.R.A. 1915E, 372.
The evidence connecting appellant with the burning of the barn described in the indictment--if indeed said barn was burned by an incendiary--was entirely circumstantial.
Appellant was entitled to a trial in full conformity to Sec. 6 of the Constitution of 1901 which provides, among other things, that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused * * * shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself."
One of the principal bits of evidence by which appellant was sought to be connected with the burning of the barn in question was a series of tracks (made by a human being) leading toward and away from the said barn.
After the barn had burned during the nighttime, on the morning following, the Sheriff of the County took appellant--either under arrest or duress--and "had him put his foot in this track" (one of the tracks referred to above). And over appellant's objection--due exception being reserved--the Sheriff was allowed to testify on the trial that "it was exactly the same"--meaning appellant's foot exactly fitted said track.
Further elaborating--all over appellant's objection, with due exception reserved--the Sheriff was allowed to testify, substantially, that he "took hold of the defendant's foot and * * * placed it in the track."
The above procedure, with the detailing of it in the testimony, constituted a clear violation of appellant's rights as set forth in the Section of the Constitution quoted from above. Cooper v. State, 86 Ala. 610, 6 So. 110, 4 L.R.A. 766, 11 Am.St.Rep. 84.
It is yet the law of this State that "evidence showing a voluntary offer of settlement in a criminal prosecution which [does not embody] an express admission of guilt" is inadmissible on the trial of the accused. Harrison v. State, 235 Ala. 1, 178 So. 458, 460.
Here, a witness shown to be an agent of the National Board of Fire Underwriters, holding a commission from the State Fire Marshall, was allowed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hereford v. State
...admission of guilt" is admissible. In this case, the appellant maintained he had nothing to do with the fire. 4. Daugherty v. State, 28 Ala.App. 453, 186 So. 780 (1939), involved a prosecution for arson in the first degree. In that case, an agent of the National Board of Fire Underwriters, ......
-
Burks v. State
... ... was put on his foot by force or against his will and over his ... protest. Wells v. State, supra; Banks v. State, 84 ... Ala. 430, 4 So. 382; 16 Corpus Juris 568, section 1101; 22 ... Corpus Juris Secundum, Criminal Law, pages 995 and 1000, §§ ... 650, 653; Daugherty v. State, 28 Ala.App. 453, 186 ... So. 780. This case does not present that situation ... The ... evidence about putting on defendant the shoe of the witness ... is not an inculpatory admission, requiring preliminary proof ... that he voluntarily consented, though sometimes such ... ...
-
Flournoy v. State
... ... embraces an express admission of guilt. Harrison v ... State, 235 Ala. 1, 3, 178 So. 458 ... Conversely, ... evidence showing an effort to compromise a criminal ... prosecution which does not embody such admission of guilt is ... inadmissible. Harrison case, supra; Daugherty v ... State, 28 Ala.App. 453, 454, 186 So. 780; Kennamer ... v. State, 28 Ala. App. 317, 183 So. 892; Ala.Dig., Crim ... Law, + 408 ... There ... was a complete absence of evidence here that the defendant ... ever, at any time, did or said anything that tended to admit ... guilt ... ...
-
State v. Paulas, 2664
...be permitted to state his belief, opinion, or conclusion that certain tracks were made by accused * * *.' See also Daugherty v. State, 28 Ala.App. 453, 186 So. 780, 781, where the court 'Appellant was entitled to a trial in full conformity to Sec. 6 of the Constitution of 1901 which provide......