McCullars v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1922
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 267.
• Citation: 94 So. 55,208 Ala. 182
• Parties: MCCULLARS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

94 So. 55

208 Ala. 182

MCCULLARS v. STATE.

7 Div. 267.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1922

Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Calhoun County; A. P. Agee, Judge.

Charles McCullars was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Miller J., dissenting.

Merrill & Allen, of Anniston, and Harrison & Stringer, of Talladega for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Marion Rushton, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

MILLER J.

The defendant, Charles McCullars, was indicted and tried for killing Worley Loudermilk, under circumstances constituting murder in the first degree; he was convicted by the jury of murder in the second degree, and his punishment was fixed by them at 21 years imprisonment in the penitentiary; and from the judgment and sentence of the court, the defendant appeals.

The record presents two questions for the consideration of the court. They are the only ones argued and insisted on by appellant, and, after reading the entire record, we think they are the only ones necessary for us to treat in this opinion.

Was there any independent evidence of the corpus delicti to authorize the introduction in evidence of confessions corroborating it, claimed to have been made by the defendant? If so, then were the confessions voluntarily made by the defendant?

"A confession, not corroborated by independent evidence of the corpus delicti, is not sufficient to support a conviction." Johnson v. State, 192 Ala. 686, 68 So. 1018; Hill v. State (Ala. Sup.) 93 So. 460; Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187; Smith v State, 133 Ala. 145, 31 So. 806, 91 Am. St. Rep. 21; Stringer v. State, 135 Ala. 60, 33 So. 685.

This court, in Hill v. State (Ala. Sup.) 93 So. 460, stated:

"It must be considered as settled that inconclusive facts and circumstances tending prima facie to show the corpus delicti may be aided by the admissions or confession of the accused so as to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and so to support a conviction, although such facts and circumstances, standing alone, would not thus satisfy the jury of the existence of the corpus delicti."

See, also, Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187; Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 94, 14 So. 868; 16 Corpus Juris, § 1514, p. 737.

This is practically the same as the general rule as found in 16 Corpus Juris, p. 771, § 1579:

"Extrajudicial admissions, declarations, or confessions of accused are not of themselves sufficient to establish the corpus delicti, although they may be considered in connection with other independent evidence in determining whether the corpus delicti is sufficiently proved." Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 187.

Corpus delicti means "the body of the crime or offense"; "it means the actual commission by some one of the particular crime charged"; and in this case it means that the deceased was unlawfully killed by some person. 16 Corpus Juris, p. 771, § 1578; White v. State, 49 Ala. 344.

Deceased, Worley Loudermilk, was running a restaurant in Anniston in December, 1921. He was married, had three children, and they lived in rooms upstairs-located on the same street a few doors from his restaurant. The rooms were entered by stair steps from the sidewalk. About 11 o'clock p. m. of December 18, 1921, there were cries and screams from persons in his room. The voice of a person, near the entrance at the steps on the sidewalk, stated "Get an officer." The person who heard the screams and the voice at the steps on the sidewalk, went up to the rooms. The deceased, his wife, and children were there; he was sitting on the side of the bed; he was bleeding freely from a wound-a cut-in his neck. There was blood on the sheet, floor, his night clothes, and his body. The wound was in his neck, and about two inches long. It cut his windpipe open; and went into it about half an inch. It was made with a sharp instrument. There was no evidence of a sharp instrument near him in the room. He was rushed to a hospital and died from the wounds in about an hour and a half. His body was carried from there to the residence of his mother in Talladega county.

The defendant had, three or four weeks previous to this time, been working with deceased in the restaurant, and occupied a room near him and his family. There was evidence that defendant left McFall, in Talladega county, late in the afternoon of December 18, 1921, on a train going towards Anniston. He was seen in Anniston that night, about 8 o'clock, near the restaurant of deceased, and returned from Anniston to McFall on the engine of a freight train that night between 10:30 and midnight. The sheriff of Calhoun county arrested him in Talladega county at the home of the mother of deceased, where the body had been taken, and carried him from there to his office in Anniston. This was on the night of December 19th. When he reached the sheriff's office, the defendant was examined; blood stains appeared on his hat, coat sleeves, shirt, handkerchief, and pocket knife. There was evidence that these were the clothes he had on the night before. These clothes were on the person of the defendant, and the knife was in his pocket. There were scratches on his face and neck. The defendant informed the sheriff he had been killing hogs and got the blood on him in that way.

There appears in the record sufficient independent evidence of the corpus delicti to authorize the introduction in evidence of admissions, or confessions, or declarations by the defendant, if they were voluntarily made by him. The sheriff testified:

"None of us threatened him. We never have threatened him. We did not try to coerce him or promise him anything. We did not promise to help him out. I said to him, 'I hate this thing because I have known your people a long time and I am a little kin to your father, your father is a little distant relation of mine, and I have known the family a long time, and I hate it.' That is one of the things I said to him. Another thing I told him in my office was, I said, 'I have been working on this thing all day and would like to know the truth of it. Now, I want to tell you before you tell me anything, that anything in my official way will be against you, anything you tell me, but any other way that I can be a friend to you I will be glad to do it.' I told him any statement that he made would be used against him. *** Among some of the things I told him was 'anything I can do outside of my official capacity I will gladly do for you, but I will not employ any lawyer or spend any money for you.' I said, 'I

...