Powell v. State
Decision Date | 13 January 1948 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 890. |
Parties | POWELL et al. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Edw. G. Branch, Jr., and Victor H. Ballard both of Montgomery, for appellants.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and L. E. Barton, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The defendants were jointly indicted on a charge of robbery. The two were tried without a severance. The jury found both guilty as charged.
The alleged assaulted party was a soldier by the name of Weldon Bennett.
In brief, counsel for appellants states:
There was no proof taken to support this claim. As a part of the minute entry of the court, the record discloses: 'This the 21st day of July, 1947, came William T. Seibels, Solicitor who prosecutes for the State of Alabama, and came also the defendants in their own person and by attorney, and the said defendants being duly arraigned and charged upon the indictment in this cause pleaded thereto not guilty.'
We are, of course, under these circumstances controlled by the recitations of the record.
Before entering into the main proceedings of the trial, appellants' counsel moved for a continuance of the cause on the stated ground that sufficient time had not been allowed to prepare for trial. This was addressed to the enlightened discretion of the trial judge, and we cannot hold that there was an abuse in this incident. Morris v. State, 193 Ala. 1, 68 So. 1003; Wilson v. State, 31 Ala.App. 21, 11 So.2d 563.
Objections were interposed to the solicitor's standing near a witness while conducting the examination. To explain his ruling the court made this statement:
It appears to us that the reasons here given fully justified the action of the judge.
It is insisted that the confession introduced in evidence was not voluntarily made. We cannot give our assent to this position. The State introduced preliminary evidence that met all the requirements of the applicable rule. Johnson v. State, 242 Ala. 278, 5 So.2d 632; Henly v. State, 21 Ala.App. 259, 107 So. 801.
The alleged assaulted party was wounded about his head and face and found shortly thereafter in an unconscious state. On the day following the officers took photographic pictures of the victim. Over objections of defendants' counsel these photographs were allowed in evidence. It was stated by the witness that these pictures accurately portrayed the condition of the soldier at the time they were taken. Clearly, the nature and extent of the inflicted wounds was a pertinent inquiry. Brown v. State, 120 Ala. 342, 25 So. 182. The exhibits were properly admitted over the general grounds of objections interposed thereto. Wilson v. State, 31 Ala.App. 21, 11 So.2d 563.
It cannot be charged as prejudicial error, although it may be said that the evidence was cumulative in effect and undisputed in fact. Wilson v. State, supra; Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, 132 So. 711.
We have given careful consideration to the other rulings of the court incident to the introduction of the testimony. We do not find, in any of these, questions worthy of our comment.
When the State had concluded the introduction of its evidence in chief, appellants' counsel moved for a directed verdict and the discharge of the defendants.
At this stage in the proceedings there was ample evidence presented to justify the court's action in overruling the motion. The State had made proof that both of the defendants had accompanied the soldier, late at night, from a cafe in the City of Montgomery to a night spot a few miles out; that the latter was in a drunken condition; that some money and a watch were taken from the person of the assaulted party; the testimony of an employee of the night spot that out in the yard back of the building she observed one of the defendants standing over the prostrate body of the soldier and, at the same...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carroll v. State
...fact appearing therein is in accord with the testimony of the appellant. Stallings v. State, 249 Ala. 1, 32 So.2d 233; Powell v. State, 33 Ala.App. 323, 33 So.2d 399. A highway patrolman came to the scene soon after the collision and before the dead body of the little girl was removed. He g......
-
Scroggins v. Alabama Gas Corp.
...below to an error in the oral charge of the trial court precludes review. Kearley v. Cowan, 217 Ala. 295, 116 So. 145; Powell v. State, 33 Ala.App. 323, 33 So.2d 399; Lipscomb v. State, 32 Ala.App. 623, 29 So.2d 145. We have repeatedly held that when unrelated assignments of error are argue......
-
Carpenter v. State
...the crime was a pertinent inquiry in the case, and that, therefore, the photograph was properly admitted in evidence. See Powell v. State, 33 Ala.App. 323, 33 So.2d 399; Payne v. State, 261 Ala. 397, 74 So.2d The testimony of the victim of the alleged robbery which was offered to establish ......
-
Wilson v. State
...In any event, if had to do with facts that were in no manner disputed. Wilson v. State, 31 Ala.App. 21, 11 So.2d 563; Powell v. State, 33 Ala.App. 323, 33 So.2d 399. was evidence that one of the participants in the offense had a rifle at the time of the robbery. A rifle, which the witnesses......