McGehee v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtSOMERVILLE, J. SOMERVILLE, J.
Citation171 Ala. 19,55 So. 159
Decision Date09 February 1911
PartiesMCGEHEE v. STATE.

55 So. 159

171 Ala. 19

MCGEHEE
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 9, 1911


On Rehearing, April 22, 1911.

On Rehearing.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Crenshaw County; J. C. Richardson, Judge.

Fletcher McGehee was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

G. O. Dickey and Frank B. Bricken, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SOMERVILLE, J.

The indictment under which the defendant was tried and convicted of murder was in two counts. The defendant in due form objected to the indictment on the alleged ground that the first count charged him with the murder of the infant child of Fenie "Geldell," and the second count charged him with the murder of the infant child of Fenie "Yeldell," thus charging him in one indictment with two distinct and unrelated [55 So. 160] murders. We have examined the original indictment, and are of the opinion that the mother's name is written "Yeldell" in both counts, although the capital "Y's" are of a different form.

But, in any case, the objection is not good, since two offenses by the same person, if of the same general nature, and subject to the same mode of trial and punishment, may be included in the same indictment. Cawley v. State, 37 Ala. 152; Sampson v. State, 107 Ala. 76, 18 So. 207. Besides, the record shows that no injury resulted to the defendant.

The evidence for the state tended to show that Fenie Yeldell, the defendant's stepdaughter, gave birth about 3 o'clock one morning to an illegitimate child, of which he was the father; that defendant and said Fenie's mother were present; and that defendant promptly took the infant and threw it into a near-by well.

W. W. Graydon testified for the state that on the next day he went to see defendant, where he was working in the field, and talked to him about the crime for several hours; that he reasoned and argued with defendant as to defendant's guilt, and as to his telling him all he knew about it; that defendant said, "I thank you for your advice, but I will be obliged to object"; that defendant further stated that said Fenie had not had a child, and, if she was in that condition, he didn't know it, and that her trouble was "bone erysipelas in her leg"; that he afterwards went to see defendant at the jail, when the defendant voluntarily said, "I didn't do it. I was there and the baby was born, and Frances (his wife) took it in her coat tail, and went out of the door." The defendant voluntarily took the stand, and testified in his own behalf, in substance, that the child was born in his presence, and that his wife, Frances, carried it out of the house with the declared purpose of destroying it, he the while protesting, and that he had nothing to do with the crime.

By the weight of authority, inculpatory admissions not amounting to a specific confession of guilt require when offered by the state no preliminary proof of their...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 practice notes
  • Whitt v. State, No. CR-96-0349.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 3 Abril 1998
    ...to the same rules of admissibility, as direct confessions, and are therefore prima facie involuntary and inadmissible." McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 22, 55 So. 159, 160 (1911) (citations omitted). Moreover, no distinction is made between inculpatory and exculpatory statements. Miranda, 38......
  • Harrison v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 31 Mayo 2002
    ...144 So. 867 (1932); Houston v. State, 208 Ala. 660, 95 So. 145 (1923); Tennison v. State, 183 Ala. 1, 62 So. 780 (1913); McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 55 So. 159 (1911); McDonald v. State, 165 Ala. 85, 51 So. 629 (1910). In addition, Alabama courts have also recognized the danger in confus......
  • Gobble v. State, CR–05–0225.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 14 Septiembre 2012
    ...144 So. 867 (1932); Houston v. State, 208 Ala. 660, 95 So. 145 (1923); Tennison v. State, 183 Ala. 1, 62 So. 780 (1913); McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 55 So. 159 (1911); McDonald v. State, 165 Ala. 85, 51 So. 629 (1910). In addition, Alabama courts have also recognized the danger in confus......
  • Reynolds v. State Of Ala., CR-07-0443
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 1 Octubre 2010
    ...144 So. 867 (1932); Houston v. State, 208 Ala. 660, 95 So. 145 (1923); Tennison v. State, 183 Ala. 1, 62 So. 780 (1913); McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 55 So. 159 (1911); McDonald v. State, 165 Ala. 85, 51 So. 629 (1910). In addition, Alabama courts have also recognized the danger in confus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
63 cases
  • Whitt v. State, No. CR-96-0349.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 3 Abril 1998
    ...to the same rules of admissibility, as direct confessions, and are therefore prima facie involuntary and inadmissible." McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 22, 55 So. 159, 160 (1911) (citations omitted). Moreover, no distinction is made between inculpatory and exculpatory statements. Miranda, 38......
  • Harrison v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 31 Mayo 2002
    ...144 So. 867 (1932); Houston v. State, 208 Ala. 660, 95 So. 145 (1923); Tennison v. State, 183 Ala. 1, 62 So. 780 (1913); McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 55 So. 159 (1911); McDonald v. State, 165 Ala. 85, 51 So. 629 (1910). In addition, Alabama courts have also recognized the danger in confus......
  • Gobble v. State, CR–05–0225.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 14 Septiembre 2012
    ...144 So. 867 (1932); Houston v. State, 208 Ala. 660, 95 So. 145 (1923); Tennison v. State, 183 Ala. 1, 62 So. 780 (1913); McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 55 So. 159 (1911); McDonald v. State, 165 Ala. 85, 51 So. 629 (1910). In addition, Alabama courts have also recognized the danger in confus......
  • Reynolds v. State Of Ala., CR-07-0443
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 1 Octubre 2010
    ...144 So. 867 (1932); Houston v. State, 208 Ala. 660, 95 So. 145 (1923); Tennison v. State, 183 Ala. 1, 62 So. 780 (1913); McGehee v. State, 171 Ala. 19, 55 So. 159 (1911); McDonald v. State, 165 Ala. 85, 51 So. 629 (1910). In addition, Alabama courts have also recognized the danger in confus......
  • 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