McClain v. State

• Decision Date: 10 April 1913
• Parties: McCLAIN v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

62 So. 241

182 Ala. 67

McCLAIN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 10, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; J.E. Blackwood, Judge.

Bud McClain was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The following are the charges referred to in the opinion:

"F. I charge you that, although there may be no probability of the innocence of the defendant, yet if there is in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt of his guilt, it is the duty of the jury to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and find him not guilty.

"G. If the jury believe, after a consideration of the evidence or any part thereof, that there is a probability of defendant's innocence, then they should acquit.

"H. If, after considering all the evidence, you should find that there is one single fact proved to the satisfaction of the jury which is inconsistent with the defendant's guilt, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, and you should acquit.

"I. If there is one single fact proven to the satisfaction of the jury which is inconsistent with defendant's guilt, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, and the jury should acquit.

"J. The jury must be satisfied clearly, fully, and conclusively, and to a moral certainty, of defendant's guilt before they can convict him."

"O. You must be satisfied, clearly, fully, and conclusively, and to a moral certainty, of defendant's guilt before you can convict him."

"K. If, under the evidence, all the evidence having been considered, any one juror is not satisfied of defendant's guilt to a moral certainty, it would be wrong for such juror to join a verdict of conviction.

"L. A witness who gets a part or all of the reward offered for the arrest and conviction of the defendant, such fact goes to his credibility, and it is for the jury to say what amount of credence, if any, they give such witness.

"M. The defendant enters this trial with the presumption of innocence, and this is a fact in the case which must be considered with the evidence, and should not be disregarded.

"N. The presumption of innocence attends the accused, and terminates only when the evidence has reached the point that convinces the jury beyond all reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt."

"P. If, after considering all the evidence in this case, there exists in your mind a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant participated in the commission of the crime, as charged in the indictment, then your verdict must be not guilty.

"Q. The defendant sets up an alibi in this case, and the burden of proof is not shown when he undertakes to prove it, and if, by reason of the evidence in relation to such alibi, you should entertain a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt, he should be acquitted, although you may not be able to find that the alibi has been fully proven.

"R. You must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, from all the evidence in this case that there was a conspiracy between defendant Will Campbell and Cleve Campbell to take the life of Marcella Lutes, before you can convict the defendant in this case."

"X. The only evidence of a conspiracy in this case is the evidence of the witness John McLemore, and you must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, from all the evidence in the case that there was a conspiracy between the defendant and Will and Cleve Campbell to take the life of Marcella Lutes, before you can convict defendant as charged in this indictment."

"S. If you believe from all the evidence in this case that the witness John McLemore was sworn as a witness, and testified before the coroner's court that investigated the death of Mrs. Lutes, and if you further find from all the evidence that the said witness swore falsely to any material matter inquired of by the said jury in reference to the death of Mrs. Lutes, then the jury would be authorized to disregard the whole testimony of such witness.

"T. Before you can convict the defendant you must be satisfied to a moral certainty, not only that the proof is consistent with defendant's guilt, but is wholly inconsistent with every other rational conclusion; and, unless the jury are so convinced by the evidence that you would each venture to act on that decision in matters of the highest concern and importance to your own interest, then you must find defendant not guilty.

"U. The burden is on the state to prove to your satisfaction, and to a moral certainty, that a crime has been committed, and also that the defendant committed, or participated in the commission of, such crime; and if, under the evidence, there exists in your minds a reasonable doubt as to whether the state has met the burden that the law imposes in either of said respects, it will be your duty to render a verdict of not guilty."

"Y. If proof has been made of contradictory statements or declarations, made by any witness, this may be sufficient to generate in your minds a doubt of defendant's guilt, and justify a verdict of acquittal.

"Z. A verdict of conviction would not be true if any member of your family has a reasonable doubt, under the evidence, of defendant's guilt, as charged in the indictment."

"AA. Justice requires that you acquit the defendant, unless you can say to a moral certainty from the evidence that he is guilty as charged in the indictment.

"BB. You are the sole judges of the facts in this case, and under the law, there is no appeal from your verdict on the facts.

"CC. The sole matter for you to consider is whether defendant is guilty as charged in the indictment; and if any reasonable doubt exists in your minds, after considering all the evidence as to the truth, you should acquit the defendant.

"DD. In arriving at your verdict, it would be improper for you to consider whether the defendant might or might not be pardoned at some future time, in the event of a verdict of guilt."

John W. Inzer, of Ashville, and Inzer & Inzer, of Gadsden, for appellant.

R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SOMERVILLE J.

Upon a very careful consideration of the question, we are not reasonably satisfied that defendant could not obtain a fair and impartial jury and a fair and impartial trial in St. Clair county.

The facts shown by the defendant's affidavit, as distinguished from mere conclusions, are (1) great popular excitement and wrath over the commission of the crime; (2) extraordinary interest in the preliminary trial, as manifested by the attendance of 1,500 or 2,000 people; (3) prejudicial assertions of defendant's guilt in several newspapers in general circulation in the county; and (4) fixed opinions as to the guilt of the Campbells, who were jointly indicted with him, on the part of many of the veniremen just preceding defendant's trial. It may be fairly asserted that these conditions accompany or follow the commission of all very brutal crimes in whatever community they may occur. It is certain, also, that newspaper reports of such crimes, accompanied by sensational comments and denunciations of the accused, are likely to inflame the sentiments of certain classes of the people and to engender in their minds a passive conviction, more or less permanent, of the guilt of the accused.

We are not prepared to concede, however, that the sensational language of a newspaper reporter or special correspondent used in "writing up" such cases as this may be safely taken as a reflection of general public sentiment; nor that it may be lightly assumed that such statements as those here shown are capable of permanently molding and fixing the opinions of the more intelligent classes of the people to the extinction of their sense of fair play, and the suppression of their sober second thought.

Other than the conclusions of the affiant himself, and the inferences drawn by him as to the effect of the newspaper reports, there is nothing to show such a state of inflammation and prejudice against him in the public mind as might be presumed to pervade the jury box and dominate the...