Godau v. State

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: DE GRAFFENRIED, J.
• Citation: 179 Ala. 27,60 So. 908
• Parties: GODAU v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 21 January 1913

60 So. 908

179 Ala. 27

GODAU
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 21, 1913

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1913.

Appeal from City Court of Mobile; O. J. Semmes, Judge.

Mary T. Godau was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed. [60 So. 909]

Leigh & Chamberlain, of Mobile, for appellant.

R. C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

In the present case the defendant, Mary T. Godau, was indicted for murder in the first degree. She was tried for and convicted of that offense and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life.

(1) She was indicted for the murder of her son-in-law, who was, at the time of his death, a member of the police force of the city of Mobile and also a member of three fraternal organizations of that city who insured the lives of their members. The body of the dead policeman was found in a pond near his home. It was dressed in his uniform, but bullet holes through his head disclosed the fact of his murder. Suspicion pointed to the defendant and her daughter, the dead man's wife, as the murderers. The theory was that they had murdered him to get the insurance on his life. Finally the defendant and her daughter were lodged in jail, charged with the murder, and it was at once claimed that the defendant had confessed to the murder, taking all the blame upon herself and exonerating her daughter. The newspapers of Mobile--and they were widely read and circulated there--teemed with sensational accounts of the murder, and in all of these accounts the guilt of the defendant was assumed as a fact. Pictures of the defendant and of her daughter and of the dead policeman, as well as of the sheriff and probably some of his assistants, also appeared in the Mobile papers, and, to be short, the newspapers of Mobile did all that newspapers can do to create the impression that the defendant was certainly guilty of the murder. In addition to this, they undertook to go into the past of the defendant. She appears to have been three times married, and it was broadly hinted in the papers that the defendant had murdered two, and probably all three, of her husbands. In fact, this defendant was pictured in the Mobile newspapers--and we presume that they were read by everybody--as one of the worst criminals who ever lived. Whether the defendant deserved all that was said of her by the papers we do not know; but, as we read the articles as they appear in this record, the facts are as we state them.

It further appears that the defendant, at the coroner's inquest, held about the time the body of the dead policeman was found, appeared and testified as a witness. The substance of her testimony on that occasion was that her son-in-law worked on the police force at night; that he was in his room asleep; that every one had left the house except herself; that at 6 o'clock p. m. she went to his room to wake him, and when she did so, he undertook to ravish her; that in the scuffle he managed to get a pistol and shot it, and then, to use her own language: "He then goes back onto the bed, and he puts the pistol down, and he said, 'Come on, I aint worth anything more,' and he said, 'Shoot!' He put the pistol down, and I was just boiling and crazy, and I went over near him, and he said, 'Take it and kill me,' and he closed his eyes and said, 'I want to get out of it.' I then shot him in the head, but I didn't shoot him right, and he rolled over and moaned, and I saw him suffering, so I shot him again to get the man out of his misery, and he died in my arms." She then went on to describe how she dressed the body in the clothes of the policeman, how she hauled the body to, and then placed it in, the pond, and how she attempted to hide the evidences of the homicide. It appears that a large crowd of people were present at the coroner's inquest and heard the above testimony. It also appears that the defendant's testimony above referred to appeared in full in the papers of Mobile.

After the indictment against the defendant was preferred by the grand jury, she filed in the cause an application for a change of venue, and in support of the application she offered the above newspaper articles, together with the affidavits of 57 citizens of Mobile, in which the affiants state that they have read the said articles and heard large numbers of the citizens of Mobile express themselves, and that they are acquainted with the condition of public sentiment in Mobile county with reference to the defendant, and that, in their opinion, the defendant cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in Mobile county. Some, at least, of the above affidavits were made by men prominent in the legal and commercial affairs of the city of Mobile. The state, on the other hand, introduced affidavits signed by 148 citizens of Mobile, stating that in their opinion, after reading said newspaper articles and hearing said matter discussed by citizens of Mobile county, they are of the opinion that the defendant can receive a fair and impartial trial in that county. Some, at least, of the above-named citizens were also prominent in the legal and commercial affairs of said city and county. The homicide occurred on the 31st of December, 1911, and the application for a change of venue was denied by the court on March 11, 1912. [60 So. 910]

(2) When an application for a change of venue in a criminal case is made to a trial court, it becomes, at once, the duty of the judge of that court in a fair, judicial, and impartial way, from the application and the evidence offered in support of and against it, to ascertain whether the defendant can reasonably be expected to obtain that fair and impartial trial at the hands of an unbiased and unprejudiced jury which the laws of every civilized community should accord to those charged with crime. The burden is upon the defendant to show "to the reasonable satisfaction of the court that an impartial trial and an unbiased verdict cannot be reasonably expected." If the trial judge comes to that conclusion, then the venue ought to be changed; if not, then it should not. Seams v. State, 84 Ala. 410, 4 So. 521.

When a man is charged with a crime, he is, under the law, presumed to be innocent until his guilt has been, by the evidence, legally established, and his guilt can never be said to be legally established until, by the verdict of 12 impartial men legally qualified and impaneled to serve as jurors, he has, under the evidence in his case, been declared to be guilty. The state is broad enough and the law is strong enough to furnish every person who is charged with a crime with a fair and impartial jury, and when, upon an application for a change of venue in a criminal case, it is made to appear to the reasonable satisfaction of the presiding judge that such a jury cannot be reasonably expected to be obtained to try the prisoner, then the application for a change of venue should be granted.

No jury can be said to be a fair and an impartial one unless its members are in a frame of mind to accord to the prisoner those presumptions in his favor which the law says must accompany him during his trial, and which, in a legal way, must be overcome before a legal conviction can be had. The question on such an application is not, "Is the defendant guilty?" or, "Is the offense with which the defendant stands charged a grave and heinous one?" or, "Shall punishment swiftly follow the perpetration of the crime?" but the true-- the only question--is, "Can the defendant, in this county, although guilty, be convicted according to law?" When we say "convicted according to law," we mean a conviction under the law by a fair and an impartial jury. In many criminal cases the jury determines the amount and character of the punishment and...