Huff v. State

• Decision Date: 21 November 1957
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 383
• Citation: 267 Ala. 282,100 So.2d 769
• Parties: Roy HUFF v. STATE of Alabama.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 769

100 So.2d 769

267 Ala. 282

Roy HUFF v. STATE of Alabama.

2 Div. 383.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 21, 1957.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1958.

Fred D. Gray, Montgomery, for appellant.

John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SIMPSON, Justice.

Roy Huff was indicted and convicted of the offense of rape and sentenced to death. From this conviction he appeals.

Appellant argues that he was not actively and properly defended by his court-appointed attorneys; that his confession was improperly admitted into evidence; that he was not served with a copy of the venire; and that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

The facts disclosed by the record are: The prosecutrix was at her home on the day of July 25, 1956. During the morning the defendant came by the home of the prosecutrix seeking directions to a certain sawmill. She gave him the directions, and he asked for some matches, which she also gave him. He left and returned in the afternoon of the same day. At that time the prosecutrix was sitting on the front porch of her home with her infant child in her arms when she saw the defendant advancing around the house between some hedge and the house. Upon discovering the defendant's movements, the prosecutrix became frightened and began running and screaming. The defendant immediately began pursuit. After she ran some distance with the child in her arms, the defendant overtook her, subduing her by placing one arm around her shoulders and holding a knife in his other hand with which he threatened the victim. By these threats and his menacing attitude he forced the prosecutrix to accompany him into the woods; he there committed the rape, keeping his victim at the point of his knife. During this time the prosecutrix had her infant child with her. Upon detecting a car traveling upon a nearby highway, the defendant became frightened and left the scene of the crime. The prosecutrix then went to a nearby house, made complaint, and the sheriff was notified. The sheriff went to the scene of the crime and upon being given a description of the suspect, went to the home of the defendant and there arrested him. He also searched the defendant's abode and found the shirt worn by defendant and the knife he had used to accomplish the crime. This was the same day, not long after the crime was committed, and thereupon a warrant was duly issued for the arrest of the defendant.

All the essential elements necessary to constitute the offense of rape were abundantly proven (Taylor v. State, 249 Ala. 130, 30 So.2d 256), so it cannot be said that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the great weight of the evidence.--See 16 Ala. Dig., Rape, k51(1), p. 824.

There was no error in admitting the confession of the defendant. He made the confession on the night of July 27. Proper predicate was laid showing that the confession was voluntary and that no promise, or offer of reward, was made, nor any duress practiced upon the accused to induce it.--6 Ala. Dig., Criminal Law, k517(1), p. 586 et seq.; Smitherman v. State, 264 Ala. 120, 85 So.2d 427; Hines v. State, 260 Ala. 668, 72 So.2d 296. Following are the circumstances surrounding the confession: The accused was arrested at his home soon after the crime was committed and taken to the county jail where he was lodged. There he was questioned by the sheriff of his home county, a state investigator, a state toxicologist and the toxicologist's assistant. There is no evidence of prolonged and exhausting periods of questioning; no evidence of anything but fair treatment at the hands of the officers of the law. All those who were present when the confession was made testified that no promises were made, or threats or abuses pressed upon the defendant. The evidence surrounding the confession shows that the sheriff had been down to the hospital to talk to the victim and upon returning to his office around midnight brought the accused from his cell and after a short interrogation, the accused made his statement, which was written down by one of the state investigators, and after being fully read to the accused and after he was again told he did not have to sign it, he voluntarily did so. Merely because the confession was made late at night does not establish prima facie that the accused was forced or coerced. None of those practices denounced in such cases as Fikes v. State of Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 77 S.Ct. 281, 1 L.Ed.2d 246, were present in this case. There is no evidence that the prisoner was held incommunicado for an extended period of time nor that he was transported to a place other than his home county, nor that he was subjected to any improper treatment. We think the trial court properly admitted the confession into evidence.

Present counsel for the accused states in his brief and argument that the accused is an 'ignorant and possibly mentally deficient Negro'. This is merely conjecture of counsel, for nowhere in the record is it...