Pearce v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 422 |
| Parties | PEARCE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; A.B. Foster, Judge.
Ewell Pearce was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., and Harwell G. Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The only matters presented for review by the record in this case arise from the admission of evidence offered by the state and the refusal of the affirmative charge requested by the defendant.
The first question presented arises on the admission of the testimony of R.A. Wallace, and is presented in the bill of exceptions as follows:
One element of the burden of proof resting upon the state was to prove the corpus delicti--in this case the death of Claud Wallace and the criminal agency producing it--and any evidence referring to either of those facts and tending to establish or disprove them is relevant. Underhill, Crim. Evidence, § 312; Elliott, Evidence, § 2708; Terry v. State, 118 Ala. 79, 23 So. 776. This evidence was not patently irrelevant, and the general objection lodged against it was unavailing and properly overruled. Moore v. State, 154 Ala. 48, 45 So. 656.
The testimony of Dr. Mixon, who qualified as an expert, to which objections were made, was relevant as tending to show that the gunshot wound which he found on the deceased and treated was the cause of death, and the defendant's several objections were properly overruled on the principles above stated. Underhill Crim. Evidence, § 312; Simon v. State, 108 Ala. 27, 18 So. 731; Smith v. State, 165 Ala. 57, 51 So. 610.
The record does not affirmatively show that the proper predicate was not laid for the introduction of the several inculpatory statements made by the defendant with reference to the shooting of the deceased, in fact, they were shown to be voluntarily made, and the defendant's several objections were not well taken. Fortner v. State, 12 Ala.App. 180, 67 So. 720; Whatley v. State, 144 Ala. 75, 39 So. 1014; Price v. State, 117 Ala. 113, 23 So. 691.
The remark of the defendant to or in the presence of the witness Sharpless, referring to the mark on defendant's face, "that no man could do that and get off with it," was properly admitted over the defendant's objection. This was in the nature of a threat, and the fact that deceased was not specifically referred to did not deprive it of its evidentiary value. Williams v. State, 147 Ala. 10, 41 So. 992; Underhill, Crim. Evidence,§ 328.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jennings v. State
... ... Moss v. State, 32 Ala.App. 250, 25 So.2d 700, certiorari denied 247 Ala. 595, 25 So.2d 703; Shelton v. State, 217 Ala. 465, 117 So. 8; Ducett v. State, 186 Ala. 324, 65 So. 351; Pearce v. State, 14 Ala ... App. 120, 72 So. 213. It is not required that the corpus delicti be proved by direct evidence; it may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well. Phillips v. State, 248 Ala. 510, 28 So.2d 542; Rowe v. State, 243 Ala. 618, 11 So.2d 749; McDowell v. State, 238 Ala. 101, ... ...
-
Whitehead v. State
... ... encouragement that the prisoner would be more favorably dealt ... with if he confessed, is sufficient to exclude them." ... Banks v. State, 84 Ala. 431, 4 So. 382; Fortner ... v. State, 12 Ala. App. 180, 67 So. 720; Whatley v ... State, 144 Ala. 75, 39 So. 1014; Pearce v ... State, 14 Ala. App. 120, 72 So. 213 ... The ... rule of exclusion applies, not only to confessions, but to ... inculpatory admissions in the nature of confessions; that is, ... directly relating to the facts or circumstances of the crime, ... and connecting the defendant ... ...
-
Connell v. State
...only the fact of a victim's death, but also that death was caused by the criminal agency of another. 30 C.J. 284, § 529; Pearce v. State, 14 Ala.App. 120, 72 So. 213; Ducett v. State, 186 Ala. 34, 36, 65 So. 351. This requirement is satisfied when it appears that death was not the result of......
-
Smith v. State, 3 Div. 294
...the corpus delicti, there was nonetheless a failure on the part of the prosecution to establish his criminal agency. See Pearce v. State, 14 Ala.App. 120, 72 So. 213. We disagree. The appellant's wife testified that he and the baby were alone when she departed for work and were still alone ......