Jackson v. State

• Decision Date: 07 December 1954
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 440
• Citation: 78 So.2d 665,38 Ala.App. 114
• Parties: Alvin JACKSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

Page 665

78 So.2d 665

38 Ala.App. 114

Alvin JACKSON v. STATE.

5 Div. 440.

Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 7, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1955.

Chas. S. Bentley, Goodwater, for appellant.

Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., Arthur Joe Grant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARWOOD, Judge.

This appellant stands convicted of manufacturing illicit alcoholic beverages, and of possession of a still.

The tendency of the State's evidence showed that three law enforcement officers came upon the appellant and his son at a still in Coosa County.

The still was in full operation, and one officer observed appellant holding a glass jug with a funnel in it catching the liquor as it flowed from the still. Three other glass jugs full of whiskey were found at the still as well as several barrels of mash.

Upon being arrested at the still the appellant made a statement confessory in nature, and which, according to the testimony of Mr. Johnnie Mosley, an agent for the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage control Board, was in pertinent parts as follows:

'* * * he said it is all mine, it dont belong to him, and I asked him, I said, what time did you all get down here and he said, about seven o'clock this morning. After he asked about his boy I told him I could not let him go home, I would have to carry him on, I couldn't release him; then he asked me if he could go in and plead guilty and pay the case off, if he could get it settled and I told him I didn't have anything to do with that, if he made arrangements with the courts and he could get it settled it would be all right with me.'

The defense evidence was to the effect that the appellant and his son were out in the woods hunting for mica. They came upon the still and had stopped to examine it when the officers arrived. Both appellant and his son disclaimed any ownership or connection with the still.

Counsel for appellant argues that no proper predicate was laid prior to the introduction of the confessory statements of the appellant.

In this regard we need only say that the record discloses that prior to the testimony of all witnesses testifying to appellant's alleged statements the court was meticulous in requiring every element of voluntariness to be shown. This contention is therefore without merit.

Counsel also argues that that portion of appellant's statement made at the still at the time of his arrest wherein he inquired if he could 'go in and plead guilty and pay the case off, if he could get it settled' was in the nature of an offer of a compromise and should have been excluded on a later motion of appellant.

Actually, a reading of the record would indicate that the court did grant appellant's motion to exclude this part of the statement. However, it could be argued that some of the court's statement made in connection with the ruling somewhat beclouded the true picture of just what part was excluded from the jury's consideration. This, aside however the court would have been fully justified in denying the motion.

The statement by appellant, made during the process of his arrest was admissible as part of the res gestae, the arrest being practically concurrent with the commission of the offense. Tillison v. State, 248 Ala. 199, 27 So.2d 43.

Further, while generally efforts to compromise a case may not be shown, yet if such efforts embody an express admission of guilt, as in this case, they may be shown. Daugherty v. State, 28 Ala.App. 453, 186 So. 780; Flournoy v. State, 30 Ala.App. 154, 2 So.2d 329; Kennamer v. State, 28 Ala.App. 317, 183 So. 892.

It further appears that after the jury had retired and entered upon their...