Ingram v. State
Decision Date | 30 June 1949 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 5. |
Parties | INGRAM v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Miller & Pittman, and E. G. Pilcher, of Gadsden, for petitioner.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty Gen., opposed.
The questions presented by petitioner on this appeal are (1) whether appellant's confession was improperly admitted and (2) whether the court improperly sustained the State's objection to the offer of appellant while testifying on direct examination to say that at the time he made a written confession he was frightened and afraid.
(1) Appellant was tried and convicted for shooting his wife. This occurred in Gadsden, Alabama, and appellant fled to Opelika Alabama, where he was arrested five or six days later. The opinion of the Court of Appeals states the evidence material as to whether the confession was voluntary, as follows:
'The appellant was arrested and jailed in Opelika around 7 P.M. We gather from the record that on that same night police officers of Gadsden arrived in Opelika around 11:45 P.M., and appellant being given into their custody they started back to Gadsden within about fifteen minutes. On their arrival in Gadsden around 3:30 A.M. they placed appellant in a jail cell by himself. In the late afternoon appellant was taken to a room in the jail and interviewed by two police officers of the City of Gadsden, one of whom was Detective Cartee. During this interview appellant signed a statement confessory in nature, but in which appellant in nowise claimed that the deceased was attacking him with an ice pick at the time the gun was fired.
'Mr Cartee testified that no threats, inducements, rewards or hope of reward were made or held out to appellant to induce him to make a statement, but on the other hand the appellant's actions were entirely voluntary.
'He further testified that appellant did not bear signs of mistreatment when he first saw him in the jail at Opelika, and he was not in any way mistreated on the drive from Opelika to Gadsden. Appellant did not bear any signs of mistreatment when he saw him at the interview when the statement was signed, nor did appellant make any claim that he had been mistreated in any way by anyone during the time he was in the Opelika jail or in the Gadsden jail. * * *
'During the examination of Mr. Cartee looking toward establishing the predicate of the voluntariness of appellant's confession the record shows that the court addressed certain questions to the witness as follows:
And later stated that:
The court overruled an objection which invoked the principle of due process under the socalled McNabb Rule. McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819. The Court of Appeals observed in that connection, among other things:
We agree with the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this respect. The quotation in their opinion from Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736, 68 S.Ct. 1252, 92 L.Ed. 1690, refers to the McNabb case, supra, as holding that confessions obtained while the party is illegally detained is violative of federal procedure and is not applicable to state procedure. An analysis of the McNabb case, supra, illustrates the meaning of the Townsend case, supra. For it is there said that when confessions are secured by protracted and repeated questioning of ignorant and untutored persons in whose minds the power of officers was greatly magnified, convictions based on them will be set aside in federal and state courts; and it was also held that this rule did not apply in state courts to a confession induced merely by an illegal detention when evidence so obtained is admissible under state law, but did so apply in federal courts. Upshaw v. United States, 335 U.S. 410, 69 S.Ct. 170; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706.
But the rule which renders incompetent confessions which are obtained by protracted and repeated questioning of ignorant and unlearned persons does apply to state courts. Lisenba v. California, 314 U.S. 219, 62 S.Ct. 280, 86 L.Ed. 166; Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716; Ward v. Texas, 316 U.S. 547, 62 S.Ct. 1139, 86 L.Ed. 1663. The question is controlled by the whole body of circumstances accompanying illegal detention.
We do not think that the circumstances under which the confession was obtained are sufficient to deny its use as evidence to appellant because of due process. Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510, 28 So.2d 542.
(2) The defendant offered to prove by his own testimony that at the time he signed a confession he was frightened or afraid. The court sustained the objection of the State.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals they affirmed, but the members of the court differed in the application of some of our cases.
We think it is clear that when fear is entertained by a witness and it is material in a controversy being tried in court that witness may properly be asked on direct examination whether he entertained such fear. We think such question is permissible, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. State
...noncompliance with § 160, supra, by itself alone as making a confession while under unlawful detention thereby involuntary. Ingram v. State, 252 Ala. 497, 42 So.2d 36 (reversing this court, 34 Ala.App. 597, 42 So.2d 30, because testimony of the subjective physical effect of contemporaneousl......
-
Seibold v. State
...* We see no controlling reason why the plaintiff should not have been allowed to say that she was 'scared.' * * *' In Ingram v. State, 252 Ala. 497, 500, 42 So.2d 36, 38, we further stated as '* * * In the McGuff case, supra (248 Ala. 259, 27 So.2d 241), we fully recognized what was said in......
-
Culombe v. Connecticut
...law is discussed in Kaufman, The Admissibility of Confessions in Criminal Matters (1960). ---------- 38 Alabama: Ingram v. State, 1949, 252 Ala. 497, 42 So.2d 36; Myhand v. State, 1953, 259 Ala. 415, 66 So.2d 544. Arizona: State v. Miller, 1945, 62 Ariz. 529, 158 P.2d 669; Hightower v. Stat......
-
Fikes v. State
...the use of testimony so obtained on trial for a state crime in a state court. Oldham v. State, 259 Ala. 507, 67 So.2d 55; Ingram v. State, 252 Ala. 497, 42 So.2d 36. It seems to be a well settled principle that a magnetic tape recording may be used as evidence when it is of matters otherwis......