Hill v. State

• Decision Date: 04 May 1922
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 224.
• Citation: 93 So. 460,207 Ala. 444
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Parties: HILL v. STATE.

93 So. 460

207 Ala. 444

HILL v. STATE.

7 Div. 224.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 4, 1922

Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; S.W. Tate, Special Judge.

Will Hill was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Earle Montgomery, of Talladega, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SOMERVILLE J.

In every criminal prosecution the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime charged has been in fact committed, and that the accused is the person who committed it. Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42, 47; Smith v. State, 133 Ala. 145, 150, 31 So. 806, 91 Am. St. Rep. 21; Perry v. State, 155 Ala. 93, 46 So 470; Sanders v. State, 167 Ala. 85, 52 So. 417, 28 L. R. A. (N. S.) 536.

Circumstantial evidence any afford satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti; and if any facts are shown from which the jury may reasonably infer that the crime has been committed the question must be submitted to the jury, and other evidence tending to implicate the accused is thereby rendered admissible. Cases supra; Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187; Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 14 So. 868.

But a mere extrajudicial confession, uncorroborated by other facts, is not sufficient to show the corpus delicti, and cannot support a conviction. Johnson v. State, 142 Ala. 1, 37 So. 937; Patterson v. State, 202 Ala. 65 (9), 79 So. 459; Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187, 195 "Evidence of facts and circumstances, attending the particular offense, and usually attending the commission of similar offenses-or of facts to the discovery of which the confession has led, and which would not probably have existed if the offense had not been committed-or of facts having a just tendency to lead to mind of the conclusion that the offense has been committed-would be admissible to corroborate the confession. The weight which would be accorded them, when connected with the confession, the jury must determine, under proper instructions from the court."

Under the decisions of this court above noted, it must be considered as settled that inconclusive facts and circumstances tending prima facie to show the corpus delicti may be aided by the admissions or confession of the accused so as to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and so to support a conviction, although such facts and circumstances, standing alone, would not thus satisfy the jury of the existence of the corpus delicti. Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187, 195; Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 95, 14 So. 868. And this seems to be the general rule. 16 Corpus Juris, § 1514, p. 737.

In Harden v. State, 109 Ala. 50, 19 So. 494, where there was no evidence of the corpus delicti, and the defendant would have been entitled to the general affirmative charge if he had requested it, it was said in the opinion that "a mere confession will not authorize a conviction unless, independent of the confession, the evidence is sufficient to authorize the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense has been committed." That statement is inaccurate, and was a dictum merely. Manifestly it was an inadvertence, and its inconsistency with Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 14 So. 868, which was written by the same learned justice, was overlooked. The dictum was quoted later in the case of Calvert v. State, 165 Ala. 99, 51 So. 311, where, however, the distinction in question was not involved, and evidently was not in the mind of the writer nor of the court. We therefore disapprove the...