Fillman v. State
| Decision Date | 29 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 836 |
| Parties | William FILLMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Wilters & Brantley, Bay Minette, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Geo. D. Mentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Fillman stands convicted of and has been sentenced to twenty years confinement for the second degree murder of his wife.
A State toxicologist, Mr. Nelson Grubbs, testified that, in his opinion, based on an autopsy, Mrs. Fillman died of loss of blood because her liver had been ruptured. Asked if the damage could have been caused by a kick from a shod human foot, Mr. Grubbs replied, 'It is possible.'
Mr. J. M. Garrett, a policeman of the city of Fairhope, on May 24, 1959, at about 11:30 p. m., went to the Fillmans' home and was shown Mrs. Fillman's body lying across a bed.
Captain Fillman related the following account to the Chief of Police, the statement being preceded by proof of its freedom from illegal inducement:
'* * * He said he asked his wife to fix him some breakfast and she didn't move--just set there, and that he picked up a beer bottle and hit her over the head and he left and came back later and hit her over the head again with another beer bottle and he went up town and then * * * to the Legion and Elks Club and came back around 8:00 or 9:00 o'clock--he wasn't sure what time it was; that she was laying on the floor between the bath room and the kitchen; there was a little hall there and he ripped her clothes off of her trying to pull her into the bed room and he put her partly on the bed; he said that was around 9:00 o'clock; he told me he called Higgins Mortuary around 11:30 and as far as he knew she was dead--She was cold and didn't say anything to him and he thought she died because she had not been eating.
* * *
* * *
'* * * he had just thought she was passed out drunk and he kicked her, * * * a couple of times in the chest and later on he brought her into the bed room.'
From Mr. Garrett's cross-examination, we find:
'Mr. Hendrix: I object to what he appeared----
'The Court--Sustain the objection.' (Italics added.)
The italicized question has two parts: first, Garrett's observation, and, second, Fillman's manifestation (as Garrett noticed) of comprehension. The question does not admit of division of one part from the other. It asks Garrett to describe Fillman's appearance insofar as it might show or shed light on his knowing what had gone on around him or knowing what he might have done.
The Attorney General contends the question sought to have the witness testify 'as to the mental attitude, condition or capacity of another,' citing among other cases, Smarr v. State, 260 Ala. 30, 68 So.2d 6. The reference is to the portion of the Smarr opinion found at the top of the second column of page 35, at page 11 of 68 So.2d. However, that discussion is based on the rule as to a nonexpert's opinion of sanity, a question which is not here before us.
Under a statutory plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the range of enquiry is broad. Howard v. State, 172 Ala. 402, 55 So. 255, 34 L.R.A., N.S., 990; Moody v. State, 267 Ala. 204, 100 So.2d 733.
The defense adduced excerpts from the log of the S. S. Margaret Walsh for March 28-April 5, 1959, covering the first leg of a voyage from Mobile to San Diego. Fillman was Chief Mate of the vessel. The entries in the log describe his conduct: (1) complaining of imaginary persons in the master's cabin; (2) as watch officer, mistakenly believing the engines were idle while the ship was under way; (3) saying a woman was hiding in the smokestack; (4) searching the ship for his dog; and (5) hiding in the wheelhouse telling the skipper to turn out the light, 'They are coming after me,' and other similar hallucinations.
Fillman was locked up and put under guard until the Margaret Walsh touched Cristobal, C. Z., where he was taken to a hospital.
As we view the narrative, it portrays conduct from which a jury could have inferred that Fillman was insane.
Concededly, a witness cannot testify directly as to the mental operation of another: 'The Devil himself knoweth not the thought of man.' However, another's words and conduct may, when otherwise admissible, be related by a witness.
Judge McElroy, in his The Law of Evidence in Alabama (2d Ed.), § 128.08, says:
.'
From the opinion of Denson, J., in Delaney v. State, cited in the quotation above, we quote:
* * *' 148 Ala. at page 587, 42 So. at page 815.
The phenomena making up the conduct and demeanor of a person when described from the standpoint of an onlooker, if relevant to an issue, are admissible in evidence. Had the question tried to bring out what impression was being made on Fillman's mind, it would have been bad. However, here, we consider, was a question which sought to elicit Mr. Garrett's impression of what he saw of the physical appearance of the defendant, Fillman, insofar as Garrett's description might shed light for the jury in their determining Fillman's detachment from reality.
We consider there is no question here of the so-called Alabama rule of exclusion--i. e., of, on direct examination, testimony by the witness of his undisclosed mental state or uncommunicated motive as discussed in McGuff v. State, 248 Ala. 259, 27 So.2d 241.
In footnote 1 to § 1974, Wigmore appends twenty-nine Alabama cases (against four contra) admitting testimony on such 'shorthand renditions of fact' as 'sick,' 'angry,' 'afraid,' 'healthy,' and the like. See also Hall v. State, 216 Ala. 336, 113 So. 64. To which might be added Hale v. Cox, 231 Ala. 22, 163 So. 335; Councill v. Mayhew, 172 Ala. 295, 55 So. 314; Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 36 So. 1012, and Deloney v. State, 225 Ala. 65, 142 So. 432.
In Hale v. Cox, supra [231 Ala. 22, 163 So. 337], a witness was asked (of the testator), 'Tell * * * how that man appeared physically and how he appeared to...
To continue reading
Request your trial