Poarch v. State

• Decision Date: 03 April 1923
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 994.
• Citation: 19 Ala.App. 161,95 So. 781
• Parties: POARCH v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

95 So. 781

19 Ala.App. 161

POARCH v. STATE.

8 Div. 994.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 3, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.

Charles Edward Poarch was convicted under an indictment charging manufacture of prohibited liquors and the possession of a still, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

John A Lusk & Son, of Guntersville, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State

BRICKEN P.J.

Upon the trial of this case the court permitted the state to prove the confession of defendant. It is conceded that no predicate was laid, as required by law, showing that such confession was voluntarily made. However, the Attorney General representing the state upon this appeal, undertakes to sustain the trial court in this connection, and insists that the question is not properly presented here for review because there was only a general objection interposed to the question calling for the confession, and that for like reason the court did not err in overruling the motion to exclude the testimony of the witness as to such confession. He takes the position that, as there was no objection to the effect that the proper predicate was not laid, such specific ground was thereby waived, and insists that the mere general objection interposed was not sufficient. He cites the following cases in support of this contention: "Wigginton v. State, 17 Ala. App. 651, 87 So. 698; McMillan v. State, 18 Ala. App. 118, 90 So. 56; Humphrey v. State, 8 Ala App. 251, 90 So. 504. These cases, while correctly stating the law applicable to the questions therein involved, are not in point here, as will hereinafter be shown.

The objections interposed by defendant to the introduction in evidence of his confessions, and his motion to exclude, were based upon the grounds that the evidence was irrelevant, inadmissible, and illegal. Thus the principal question is presented, which is whether or not these objections are sufficient to raise the question that the confession was not shown to have been voluntary, or whether the accused waived the required preliminary proof by the generality of his objections.

We shall not undertake to elaborate on the oft-announced and well-recognized rule that confessions in criminal cases are prima facie inadmissible, and, unless waived, will not be received in evidence until the court is made satisfied by evidence that they were entirely voluntary. Carr v. State, 17 Ala. App. 539, 85 So. 852.

A general objection to testimony as to confessions of defendant, or that the question propounded calls for irrelevant, inadmissible, and illegal evidence, is sufficient for its exclusion, in the absence of a proper predicate. No proper predicate had been laid for the introduction of the evidence as to defendant's confession in this case, and the court erred in overruling the objection, and in not excluding the testimony upon motion of defendant. McAlpine v. State, 117 Ala. 93, 100, 23 So. 130; Bradford v. State, 104 Ala. 68, 70, 16 So. 107, 53 Am. St. Rep. 24; Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749, 3 Am. St. Rep. 682.

In the McAlpine Case, supra, the court said:

"It has been repeatedly held that all confessions are prima facie involuntary, and in order to render them admissible it must be shown prima facie that they were voluntarily made, without the appliances of hope or fear, without extraneous

...