Minton v. State
Decision Date | 24 June 1924 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 959. |
Citation | 101 So. 169,20 Ala.App. 176 |
Parties | MINTON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied July 22, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Shelby County; W. M. Lackey, Judge.
Fred Minton was convicted of grand larceny and appeals. Affirmed.
Lapsley & Carr, of Anniston, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant (defendant in the court below) was indicted and convicted for the larceny of a Ford automobile of the value of $350, the personal property of B. T. and D. G. Kimbrough.
The evidence for the state tended to show that Kimbrough Bros., a partnership composed of B. T. and D. G. Kimbrough, owned a store at Harpersville, having a garage in which the car was kept in the rear of the store, that the defendant and one Charlie Baker were seen about the garage on Friday before the car was missed on Wednesday. The overcoat and gloves of D. G Kimbrough were in the car. After the car was missed D. G Kimbrough went to Piedmont and there he saw the defendant with the overcoat and gloves belonging to Kimbrough, which were in the car at the time it was stolen. The defendant was arrested and carried to jail where, as the state's evidence tended to show, he made a confession that he was with Charlie Baker when he stole the car, but defendant claimed he had nothing to do with the larceny of the car, denied the alleged confession, and stated that he got the overcoat from a pawnbroker in Anniston and did not know that the gloves were in the pocket.
Learned counsel for appellant insist that the alleged confession of the defendant was not shown to be voluntary and was not admissible in evidence.
The following occurred on the trial during the examination of a state's witness, D. G. Kimbrough:
Objection was not interposed to the answer or any part of it after the witness stated that the defendant's father said to defendant, "Now, Fred, if you know anything about it, just tell it; it will be lighter on you." There was no motion to exclude any portion of the above answer.
Confessions are prima facie involuntary and inadmissible. Before confessions are allowed to go to the jury in criminal cases it must be affirmatively shown to the satisfaction of the court that they were made voluntarily. Burton v. State, 194 Ala. 2, 69 So. 913; Aaron v. State, 181 Ala. 1, 61 So. 812; Saulsberry v. State, 178 Ala. 16, Lester v. State, 170 Ala. 36, 54 So. 175; Campbell v. State, 150 Ala. 70, 43 So. 743; Dupree v. State, 148 Ala. 620, 42 So. 1004; Barddell v. State, 144 Ala. 54, 39 So. 975; Plant v. State, 140 Ala. 52, 37 So. 159; Christian v. State, 133 Ala. 109, 32 So. 64; Brown v. State, 120 Ala. 342, 25 So. 182; McAlpine v. State, 117 Ala. 93, 23 So. 130; Newell v. State, 115 Ala. 54, 22 So. 572; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 284; Ragsdale v. State, 12 Ala. App. 1, 67 So. 783; Ware v. State, 12 Ala. App. 101, 67 So. 763; Fortner v. State, 12 Ala. App. 179, 67 So. 720; Wise v. State, 11 Ala. App. 72, 66 So. 128; Barr v. State, 7 Ala. App. 96, 61 So. 40; Turner v. State, 4 Ala. App. 100, 58 So. 116; Henley v. State, 3 Ala. App. 215, 58 So. 96.
If a confession was allowed to go to the jury on preliminary proof made to the court and from the evidence afterward brought forward during the trial it was shown that the confession was not voluntary, the court should, on motion, withdraw it from the jury. After proper predicate had been laid for the admission of the confession it developed later in the testimony of the witness Kimbrough that the confession was not voluntary. After this development no objection was made to the evidence and no motion was made to exclude. The court might have excluded the confession ex mero motu, but, in the absence of objection or motion by defendant to exclude, the trial court will not be put in error. The defendant may have been satisfied with the answer. Lett v. State (Ala. App.) 97 So. 148.
Furthermore the defendant as part of the alleged confession said, "Charlie Baker has your car." Baker was afterward arrested in possession of the stolen car. Though a confession be obtained by promises that it will make it lighter on the defendant to tell all he knows about it, "if it discloses extraneous facts which show the truth and tend to prove the commission of the crime, such facts may be proved, and so much of the confession as relates strictly to the facts so discovered." Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239, 82 So. 489; Pressley v. State, 111 Ala. 34, 20 So. 647; 1 Mayf. Dig. p. 208, par. 10.
The corpus delicti was proven. The defendant was found in possession of an overcoat and gloves carried away in the stolen car, and his confession that he was with Charlie Baker when he took the car was before the jury. A confession in connection with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jackson v. State
...v. State; Arnold v. State, 57 Ala.App. 172, 326 So.2d 700 (1976); Smith v. State, 25 Ala.App. 297, 145 So. 504 (1933); Minton v. State, 20 Ala.App. 176, 101 So. 169 (1924). In the instant case, the State proved the corpus delicti by independent evidence; thus, the oral confession of appella......
-
Johnson v. State
...evidence. Arnold v. State, 57 Ala.App. 172, 326 So.2d 700 (1976); Smith v. State, 25 Ala.App. 297, 145 So. 504 (1933); Minton v. State, 20 Ala.App. 176, 101 So. 169 (1924); Rowe v. State, 243 Ala. 618, 11 So.2d 749 We will not enumerate the many facts, circumstances, and inferences incrimin......
-
Fisher v. State
...Confessions if improperly allowed to go to the jury without objections cannot be afterwards excluded. Dick v. State, 30 Miss. 593; Minton v. State, 101 So. 169; Coon State, 13 S. & M. 246. Error as regards proof of the voluntary character of a confession will not be available on appeal unle......
- Watson v. State, 5 Div. 56