Lowe v. State

• Decision Date: 07 January 1890
• Citation: 7 So. 97,88 Ala. 8
• Parties: LOWE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

7 So. 97

88 Ala. 8

LOWE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 7, 1890

Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; S.E. GREENE, Judge.

Gilbert Lowe was indicted for the murder of John W. Meadows, and found guilty, and appeals.

W. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

CLOPTON J.

The first matter complained of is the refusal of the court to exclude the entire confession of defendant on the ground that it was not shown to have been freely and voluntarily made. The necessities of the case do not call for a decision of the question whether or not the confession was voluntary. In his confession defendant described the kind of clothing which the deceased wore when killed, and the place where he was killed, and stated that the body was left in a sink covered with leaves, and also some keys, a watch-chain a broken-handled knife, and a brown, soft hat. The court excluded all of the confession, except the statements describing the dress of deceased, the place where the killing occurred, and the manner in which the body was left.

A modification of the rule which excludes a confession not shown to be voluntary is, if information derived therefrom leads to the discovery of material facts, which go to prove the commission of the crime, so much of the confession as strictly relates to the facts discovered, and the facts themselves, will be received in testimony, though the confession may not be shown to have been voluntary, for the reason that the discovery of the facts corroborates the truth of the confession to that extent. Banks v. State, 84 Ala. 430, 4 South. Rep. 382; Murphy v. State, 63 Ala. 1. There is evidence, showing that the body of the deceased was found at the place where accused stated it was left, partially covered with leaves, as were also a broken-handled knife, watch-chain, keys, and a brown, soft hat, hear the body. The record does not affirmatively disclose whether the body and other articles were discovered before the confession was made or afterwards, as a sequence of the information derived from the accused. But the bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence. In this state of the record, we must presume, if necessary to sustain the ruling of the criminal court, that they were discovered after the confession. It is true that the clothing which the defendant stated deceased wore was not discovered. He was stripped of apparel, except the underwear. The only identifying testimony as to the clothing is that the deceased wore such the last time he was seen before the killing. It may be that the statement of defendant as to the coat, vest pantaloons and shoes of deceased do not come within the rule of admissibility. This question we do not decide. The motion was to exclude, and the exception goes to the refusal of the court to exclude, the entire confession. When general exceptions are made to evidence partly admissible and partly inadmissible,...