Lancaster v. State

Citation106 So. 617,214 Ala. 2
Decision Date28 May 1925
Docket Number6 Div. 420
PartiesLANCASTER v. STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1925

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Robert Lancaster was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The judgment being there reversed, the State petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise its said judgment and decision in the case of Robert Lancaster v. State, 106 So 609. Writ denied.

See also, 106 So. 618.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., Horace C. Wilkinson, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., and W.C. Davis and B.G. Wilson, Sol., both of Jasper for the State.

A.H. Carmichael, of Tuscumbia, E.B. & K.V. Fite, of Hamilton, Foster, Rice & Foster, and Harwood & McQueen, all of Tuscaloosa, and L.D. Gray, of Jasper, opposed.

BOULDIN J.

This court does not commit itself to the holding of the Court of Appeals to the effect that error intervened in the admission of the evidence that a pair of pants and a hat were found in the Buick car, referred to as the "death car," after its return from its death mission, nor in the admission of evidence that clothing and other equipment of Company M were missing when checked up after the homicide. 106 So. 609. One inquiry in the cause was whether the mob was composed of members of Company M. Evidence on this inquiry was material only in connection with other evidence that defendant was one of the party. This latter evidence being in, any circumstance tending to connect the men of Company M with the homicide was admissible. It is not necessary that every circumstance point directly to defendant, if in connection with all the circumstances it tended to identify him with the mob.

We do not approve the holding of the Court of Appeals that, even if Capt. Lollar was shown to be one of the coconspirators, his subsequent instructions to the company, looking to a suppression of the facts, the defendant being present, would not be admissible. As correctly held by the Court of Appeals in dealing with other rulings, efforts to conceal evidences of the crime on the part of its perpetrators was admissible. It may be said that, in the nature of the case, the commission of murder by a masked mob implies a continued conspiracy of concealment and suppression.

But we do approve the holding of the Court of Appeals that, in the absence of any evidence tending to connect Capt. Lollar with the mob, his instructions or advice to the members of the company were not admissible against defendant. Not being a member of the conspiracy, he was not a spokesman for its members by reason of the criminal relation existing between them, and his declarations could only become admissible under that other rule which admits declarations of third persons under conditions pointing so directly to accused that he is called upon to disclaim the express or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Killough v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 29, 1982
    ...a conspiracy to suppress or fabricate evidence of the crime after its commission, Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520 (1875); Lancaster v. State, 214 Ala. 2, 106 So. 617 (1925); Latham v. State, 56 Ala.App. 234, at 246-247, 320 So.2d 747, affirmed, 294 Ala. 685, 320 So.2d 760 (1975); Dailey v. St......
  • Burns v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 15, 1944
    ...the identification of a wagon by its rattle was allowed. And in Lancaster v. State, 21 Ala.App. 140, 106 So. 609, 615 (cert. den. 214 Ala. 2, 106 So. 617 and 214 Ala. 76, 106 So. our Court of Appeals held that no error was committed in permitting the witness Avery, shown to have been an exp......
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 22, 1979
    ...a conspiracy to suppress or fabricate evidence of the crime after its commission, Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520 (1875); Lancaster v. State, 214 Ala. 2, 106 So. 617 (1925); Latham v. State, 56 Ala.App. 234, at 246-247, 320 So.2d 747, affirmed, 294 Ala. 685, 320 So.2d 760 (1975); Dailey v. St......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1971
    ...determined legal conclusions from facts found by it to exist in the record, or has misapplied the law to such facts. Lancaster v. State, 214 Ala. 2, 106 So. 617; Milazzo v. State, 238 Ala. 241, 189 So. 907; Parham v. State, 217 Ala. 398, 116 So. 418; Stallings v. State, 249 Ala. 1, 32 So.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT