Grimes v. State

• Decision Date: 06 February 1895
• Citation: 105 Ala. 86,17 So. 184
• Parties: GRIMES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 184

105 Ala. 86

GRIMES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 6, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Washington county; James T. Jones, Judge.

Sanford Grimes was convicted under an indictment charging him with rape and carnal knowledge of a female under 10 years of age and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant in this case was tried and convicted under an indictment, as is shown by the opinion, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for life. Upon the introduction by the state of Bertie Grimes as a witness, the defendant objected to her examination as a witness in the case, on account of her tender years, and requested "the court to put the witness Bertie Grimes on her voir dire. The court then asked the witness if she knew that it was wrong to tell a lie. The witness answered,'Yes.' The court stated that the court was satisfied with the witness. The defendant insisted that the witness should be examined touching her knowledge of punishments and rewards in a future state; the defendant insisting that the witness was incompetent to testify unless she showed some knowledge of the nature of an oath, and the consequences of a false oath. The court stated that the witness knew nothing about a future state; that that was a question of theology, with which courts have nothing to do. The court stated further that the court knew nothing about a future state, and that the solicitor and the attorney for the defendant knew nothing about a future state; neither did anybody else know anything about such matters. To these remarks by the court the defendant duly and legally excepted. The court stated, however, that while the court was satisfied with the competency of the witness Bertie Grimes, for the benefit or satisfaction of defendant or defendant's attorney, the court would further question the witness touching her knowledge and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. The court then asked the witness Bertie Grimes, if she swore a lie and did bad, if she knew where she would go when she died. The witness answered that she would go to hell. To this answer of the witness the court remarked, 'That is right; that is orthodox.' The court then asked the witness, if she swore the truth and did right, if she knew where she would go when she died. The witness answered, she would go to heaven. To this answer the court remarked, 'That is right; that is orthodox.' The court again ruled that the witness was competent, to which ruling the defendant duly and legally excepted; and defendant further insisted that the witness Bertie Grimes be further questioned and examined to test her knowledge and belief in a Supreme Being, a God, a Rewarder of Good and Evil. The court again ruled the witness competent, and held it not necessary for the court to examine the witness touching her knowledge and belief in a Supreme Being, to which ruling the defendant duly and legally excepted." The other facts of this case, which relate to the rulings of the trial court reviewed on the present appeal, are sufficiently stated in the opinion. Among the charges which were asked by the defendant, and to the refusal to give each of which he separately excepted, was the following: (7) "The court charges the jury that each juryman must separately and seggregately be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty, that defendant committed the outrage on Bertie...