Kozlowski v. State

• Citation: 248 Ala. 304,27 So.2d 818
• Decision Date: 17 October 1946
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 881.
• Parties: KOZLOWSKI v. STATE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

27 So.2d 818

248 Ala. 304

KOZLOWSKI v. STATE.

7 Div. 881.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 17, 1946

Wm N. McQueen, Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen for the petition.

Beddow & Jones, of Birmingham, opposed.

FOSTER Justice.

There are two questions involved in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 27 So.2d 811, and both of them need consideration on this petition.

The majority of that court in an opinion by Judge Carr in agreeing to a reversal of the judgment, held that the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding by the jury of the existence of the corpus delicti. But they agree with him that there was error in respect to the State's witness J. C. White. So that all three of the judges agree to a reversal on that ground, but Judge Harwood is of the opinion that evidence of the corpus delicti was sufficient for a finding of its existence as was done by the jury.

With reference to the evidence of J. C. White, as to which the State challenges the opinion of the Court of Appeals, it is stated in that opinion that he testified that he lived near the river for seven years and during that time spent much of his time on it; and, at length, as to his familiarity with the currents and flow of the river in the region where deceased drowned; that the water in the river was then about four feet high and pretty swift. He located the body of deceased on the third day after the drowning, which was about one mile from where the boat had been tied to a willow (as alleged by defendant), and near the bank of the river; that he had assisted in recovering other bodies from the river. He was allowed to testify, over defendant's objection, that he thought that 'if the body had been out as much as sixty feet from the bank (as alleged by defendant), it would have gone a mile below the second island, which was a little better than a mile from where she was drowned.' That means to say, as we understand it, that in his opinion, if she was in the swift water about sixty feet from the bank when she was drowned, the meandering of the river and its current were such as that her body would not have reached the bank until it had gone a mile from where it was found floating near the bank. Since from his evidence he was familiar with the currents and flow of the river, and the obstructions in it, and how the current flowed in relation to the bank and those obstructions, and the meandering of the shore line, his evidence above quoted meant that such a floating body in the swift stream at that location would not, in his opinion, have been carried to the bank by the course of the current until it had reached a point a mile further down the stream. It may be that at the latter point there was a bend in the river or an obstruction which caused the current to flow near the bank. He did not go into detail as to that so far as the opinion specifically points out. He showed however as there recited a familiarity with the currents and their flow, the location of obstructions, and had probably observed different objects and their course as they floated down the stream.

This statement of the witness may be called a conclusion of fact. It was not one of law, and not the ultimate fact for decision by the jury. 'He is not required to state every fact separately from every other fact: he may state facts either separately or collectively'; 'it is not only permissible for a witness to sometimes state a conclusion as to a fact, but often absolutely necessary that he do so, if he testify at all relative to the fact. The rule prohibits merely the drawing or stating of conclusions of law, which are questions for the court, and of certain conclusions of fact which, under the issues and evidence, are exclusively questions for the jury, and to be determined from all the other facts or evidence in the case. These conclusions of fact are denominated by our Court 'shorthand rendering of facts,' to be distinguised from mere gratuitous opinions, motives, and conjectures of the witness.' Mobile, J. & K. C. R. Co. v. Hawkins, 163 Ala. 565, 584, 585, 51 So. 37, 43.

The same principle is otherwise expressed as follows: 'The ultimate fact may be stated where it is practically impossible to reproduce or adequately describe primary facts on which inference is based,' Holman v. Brady, 241 Ala. 487, 3 So.2d 30, 33, or 'where a fact cannot be reproduced and made apparent to the jury, a witness may describe the fact according to the effect produced on his mind,' McPherson v. Martin, 234 Ala. 244, 174 So. 791, 793; Rowe v. Alabama Power Co., 232 Ala. 257, 167 So. 324; Alabama Power Co. v. Jackson, 232 Ala. 42, 166 So. 692; 32 Corpus Juris Secundum Evidence, § 461, p. 103; or 'if, from the nature of the particular fact, better evidence is not obtainable, the opinion of the witness, derived from observation, is admissible.' McPherson v. Martin, 234 Ala. 244, 174 So. 791; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Steverson, 220 Ala. 158, 124 So. 205. 'The true line of demarcation is where an inference, necessarily involving certain facts, may be stated without the facts, the inference being the equivalent of a specification of the facts.' Pollard v. Rogers, 234 Ala. 92, 173 So. 881, 885; South & N. Ala. R. Co. v. McLendon, 63 Ala. 266, 276. Such a qualified witness may state a fact known to or observed by him even though his statement involves a certain element of inference. See, Pollard v. Rogers, supra. With respect to such evidence, it is not necessary that the witness shall have expert skill as to the matter.

The rule we think is thus soundly expressed in 32 Corpus Juris Secundum Evidence, § 456, p. 94: Such 'opinion evidence may be given by an ordinary observer. The ordinary observer is qualified if it appears to the presiding judge that he has had sufficient opportunities for drawing the inference which he proposes to state, and possesses the capacity necessary to make and state it. Where the statement is largely one of fact, the qualification of the witness consists, not in skill or special experience, but in his possession of satisfactory data; but a witness who cannot claim to be a skilled witness may nevertheless have a special experience which enables him to draw a more accurate inference from particular phenomena...