Huntley v. State
| Decision Date | 04 March 1948 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 926. |
| Citation | 250 Ala. 303,34 So.2d 216 |
| Parties | HUNTLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
W A. Weaver and W. T. Starnes, both of Pell City, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. T. Hardin, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The appeal is from a judgment and conviction for the offense of rape with the infliction of the death penalty.
Defendant is a Negro, twenty-eight years of age; the victim, a Mrs Macon, a young white woman living just below Cropwell near Pell City, Alabama.At noon on April 30, last, this young woman was in her kitchen preparatory to her noon meal when a Negro man came in who had on one of her dresses which had been hanging in the rear of her place and with a heavy cloth pulled over his face, grabbed her around the shoulders and carried her to the adjoining bedroom, placed her on the bed and there accomplished his purpose, after brandishing his knife.Mrs. Macon makes no effort to identify her assailant.She merely could see from his lips down, his mouth and hands and to discover that he was a Negro.At 11:30, just previous to the assault, she had seen a Negro pass her place on the highway on a bicycle, having on some kind of a jacket trousers and a cap of the character worn by a service filling station assistant.We gather that her supposition is this was the Negro who entered her house and assaulted her.
The details of the tragedy are here of no particular moment and may be omitted.That this heinous offense was committed is well established by the uncontroverted proof.The only real question was that of identification.
The assailant left the house by the back door and evidently threw the dress over a limb in the rear of the premises.He was arrested at Hardwick's filling station in Pell City, where he worked, about 6 o'clock in the afternoon of the same day.He was placed in an automobile and carried to jail with two of the county officials and with Mr. Macon, the husband of the assaulted woman, sitting on the rear seat with him.Defendant's theory that Mr. Macon started to strike him and was prevented by one of the officers on the front seat was denied by Macon, though it was corroborated by the officer.Another Negro appears to have been arrested about the same time but was soon released.It is evident that defendant's wearing apparel, the service station cap and the dirty looking clothes, with the fact that he rode a bicycle, led him to be first suspected and immediately arrested.
The question, however, of importance in this case, and one upon which the result of this appeal turns, is the determination of the admissibility of a written confession signed by the defendant while he was in the city jail at Birmingham, Alabama, the following day, that is, May 1st.Numerous objections were interposed to the introduction of this proof upon the theory that it was not shown to be voluntary.Concerning what occurred on this afternoon in the city jail in Birmingham it is not insisted there were threats or promises made.But, the argument is that this particular confession was but a continuation or result of a previous confession made to R. E. White, the patrolman located in Birmingham, who went to see the defendant about 9 o'clock that morning and procured a statement in the nature of a confession, which he wrote out.This particular confession was never offered in evidence.The theory of the defendant is that his conversation with White stimulated in him a hope of an early release should he plead guilty; that White had impressed him that he was his friend, would give him aid, and that it would be better for him if he told everything.
White's conversation at the Birmingham jail covered a period of one and a half or two hours; he evidently went to see him for the purpose of getting these admissions or confessions at the request of the St. Clair authorities.White admits that for a long time, during that conversation, the defendant denied having anything to do with the crime.Previous events are here important.There could be no doubt that defendant underwent much questioning from the time he was arrested and placed in jail, about 6 o'clock on the afternoon of April 30, to near 12 o'clock, when he was shot.A crowd had gathered at the jail in Pell City; there were threats that he should be taken out; he was in a cell upstairs; at one time a ladder was placed which reached his cell; three shots were fired from the crowd and the evidence indicates that two of them took effect, though producing but slight wounds, one in the arm and one in his leg.He was told to lie on the floor under the bed, the lights were extinguished and he was instructed to crawl down the stairs or go in a stooping position and the authorities placed him in a cell downstairs.At about 1 o'clock in the morning the Highway Patrol from Birmingham came and succeeded in taking him to the Birmingham jail.Among the patrolmen was R. E. White.Mr. White testified that upon discovering that he was wounded or had some blood on him they carried the defendant to the Hillman Hospital, where he was treated and given a shot in the arm.From there they returned him to the jail and placed him in the solitary confinement cell.Defendant insists he slept none that night.He further states that he was mistreated by the officers at Pell City, and that while he was in the cell a rope was placed around his neck; but the officers denied this and say he was offered no indignities at all; they admitted, however, that three of the officers questioned him for a long period of time and that he constantly denied any part in the tragedy.
The defendant was evidently without means of any character.The trial judge appointed two able members of the Pell City Bar to represent him.He has neither father, mother, brother nor sister living.He had a wife with whom he was living at the time but nothing further appears of her except something was said about his wife with White in the conversation in the morning about 9 o'clock, when he asked that she be notified.
With this background, therefore, we come to the interview with Mr. White.Defendant insists that White stated in the conversation that morning, he and White being alone in the warden's room, that he had risked his life to come and save him last night.White, as we have stated, was one of the patrolmen who had brought the defendant from Pell City to Birmingham.That after asking many questions concerning his family and the like he told him of a Negro boy who had killed a white man in St. Clair county, and that he had gotten him out of a 'hornets nest'; that the boy was given only twenty-five years, served only two or three of them and then he was free.That he told him, the defendant, that if he would tell the truth about it it might be better for him, that he would not have to be gone so long; that the defendant went to crying and asked him if he would see his wife any more, and he said yes; that he asked where she lived and he told him; he asked if she had any money to come on and the defendant told him he did not know; that White then gave him his name and address and told him that if he happened to need him for anything to get someone to call him and he would come and see him.The defendant then offered in evidence the name and address given him by White, which was as follows:
'Patrolman R. E. White
B'ham.Ala. Phone--4-2551'
Defendant further stated that White told him ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odom v. State
...made to or in the presence of an officer and in response to his questioning. Logan v. State, 251 Ala. 441, 37 So.2d 753; Huntley v. State, 250 Ala. 303, 34 So.2d 216; Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510, 28 So.2d 542; Brooks v. State, 248 Ala. 628, 29 So.2d 4; Flanigan v. State, 247 Ala. 642, 2......
-
Ex parte Callahan
...the fundamental principle which we address in this case was decided by this Court prior to the Miranda decision. In Huntley v. State, 250 Ala. 303, 34 So.2d 216 (1948), Chief Justice Gardner "The rule is well established that where a confession has been obtained, or inducement held out, und......
-
Reeves v. State
...given in evidence because no confession made at Kilby prison had been introduced. The defendant contends that the rule in Huntley v. State, 250 Ala. 303, 34 So.2d 216, applies, the rule 'Where a confession has been obtained, or inducement held out, under circumstances which would render a c......
-
Hendrix v. Hendrix, 8 Div. 407.
... ... mode.' See 26 C.J.S., Depositions, § 33. See also 16 ... Am.Jur., Depositions, p. 706, § 19; Couch v. State, ... 63 Ala. 163 ... Equity ... Rule 40, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix, and the decisions ... construing it are conclusive against the use ... ...