Price v. State

Decision Date12 May 1898
PartiesPRICE v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from circuit court, Baldwin county; William S. Anderson Judge.

Jim Price was convicted of a crime, and appeals. Reversed.

Chas L. Bromberg, Jr., for appellant.

Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

COLEMAN J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of the offense of grand larceny of meat from a dwelling house. There was some evidence tending to show that meat was stolen from the dwelling house of one John H. White during an entertainment given by White, and, among other facts, it was in evidence that defendant was present at the entertainment, and left during the night for his home. Henry Johnson was examined in chief as a witness for the defendant, and, on cross-examination by the solicitor for the state, testified that the defendant "did not say he would give me ten dollars if I would say I went home with him" from the premises of White. In rebuttal, the state examined John H. White and his wife, both of whom testified that Henry Johnson stated that the defendant "told him, if he would swear that he went home with him the night of the party, that he would give him ten dollars." The testimony of these two witnesses, John H. White and his wife, relative to the statement of Henry Johnson, having been made in the absence of the defendant, was hearsay, and inadmissible as evidence upon the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The only purpose for which such testimony could be legally admitted would be to impeach the credibility of the witness Henry Johnson by showing that he had made contradictory statements, and this could not be done except by first laying a proper predicate. The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to this effect at the request of the defendant. Brown v. State, 79 Ala. 51. The error noted necessitates a reversal of the case.

There is another exception to the ruling of the court admitting conversations and declarations of the defendant which is entitled to our consideration. The record fails to show affirmatively what, if any, preliminary action was taken by the court to ascertain that the conversations and declarations were made free and voluntary, before admitting them in evidence. The objection to the question which elicited this evidence was put upon the ground that it called for "irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial" evidence, omitting the objection of "illegality." It cannot be denied that there are decisions of this court which go far to sustain the exception as taken. Amos v State, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749, and authorities cited; Bradford v. State, 104 Ala. 68, 16 So. 107; McAlpine v. State (Ala.) 23 So. 130. We have decisions, however, which to a great extent have qualified the strictness of the rule as thus stated. The case of Stone v. State, 105 Ala. 60, 17 So. 114, held that the declarations were admissible, notwithstanding there was nothing in the record to show specifically and affirmatively that the court ascertained that the declarations were freely and voluntarily made. In the case cited it was held that the mere circumstances under which they were made were sufficient to establish a predicate for their admission. In the case of Washington v. State, 106 Ala. 58-61, 17 So. 546, 547, this court used the following language: "Confessions, to be admissible, must be voluntary, and that they were voluntary must appear. This is usually shown by an examination voir dire as to promises,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • City of Dothan v. Holloway
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1986
    ... ...         Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jack M. Curtis and Leura J. Garrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., amici curiae for State of Ala ...         Sam LeMaistre, Jr., President and Chairman of the Executive Committee, and Joseph M. Carlton, Jr., Executive Director ... ...
  • Morris v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 28, 1906
    ... ... accessories before and after the fact, drawn and argued by ... counsel and bottomed on the Tally Case, 102 Ala. 25, 15 So ... Upon ... these considerations we think the court did not err in ... allowing Mrs. M. A. Price to testify that a few minutes after ... the difficulty she heard the defendant say, "We have ... come here to kill Doc Grisham and we are going to do ... it." Its tendency was to show a common purpose between ... him and his son to kill Grisham, or at least it was competent ... to go to the ... ...
  • Sharp v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 11, 1915
    ... ... were made affirmatively show that they were voluntary, and ... that there could be no valid objection that a proper ... predicate was not laid for the admission of the same ... Heningberg v. State, 153 Ala. 13, 45 So. 246; ... Stone v. State, 105 Ala. 60, 17 So. 114; Price ... v. State, 117 Ala. 114, 23 So. 691; Bush v ... State, 136 Ala. 85, 33 So. 878; Morris v. State, supra ... It was ... necessary to locate exactly the position of the deceased ... policemen when they were fired upon, to locate the defendant ... and the several parties present, ... ...
  • Duck v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 15, 1957
    ...answered, 'No.' When a confession has been admitted in evidence a presumption of correctness attends the judge's ruling, Price v. State, 117 Ala. 113, 23 So. 691, Bonner v. State, 55 Ala. 242, but the presumption is not to be overindulged where all of the evidence on voir dire is in the rec......
  • 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