Ratliff v. State

• Decision Date: 20 November 1924
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 169
• Citation: 212 Ala. 410,102 So. 621
• Parties: RATLIFF v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

102 So. 621

212 Ala. 410

RATLIFF v. STATE.

6 Div. 169

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 20, 1924

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort, Judge.

Charlie Ratliff was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Harrison & Judge and Prosch & Prosch, all of Birmingham, for appellant.

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

GARDNER J.

Appellant was convicted of the murder of his wife and his punishment fixed at life imprisonment.

It is first insisted that the court erred in refusing to set aside the service of a copy of the venire and of the indictment upon defendant and grant a continuance, first, upon the ground that a copy of the indictment and the list of names of the jurors were not served forthwith on the defendant by the sheriff. The venire appears to have been drawn on March 8th--the trial was had on March 19th--and on March 13th a copy of the indictment and venire were duly served. The ruling of this court in Scott v. State, 211 Ala 270, 100 So. 211, is decisive of this question adversely to the appellant. In the second place, that there was a variance between the original indictment and the copy served upon the defendant, citing Ezell v. State, 54 Ala. 155; Nutt v. State, 63 Ala. 180. The variance complained of, however, only related to an omission in the copy of two words from the first count of the indictment. As to this first count the state took a nolle prosequi, thus eliminating this count from the case, and the jury rested its verdict of guilt upon count 4. The materiality and effect therefore of the variance need not be considered, as, under the circumstances here stated, no possible injury could have resulted therefrom.

Counsel for appellant strenuously insist that the proof is insufficient to establish the corpus delicti, and that the affirmative charge was due to be given at the defendant's request. The rule in regard to the establishment of the corpus delicti is stated in the recent case of Hill v State, 207 Ala. 444, 93 So. 460, wherein it was said:

"In every criminal prosecution the burden is on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime charged has been in fact committed, and that the accused is the person who committed it. *** Circumstantial evidence may afford satisfactory proof of the corpus delicti; and, if any facts are shown from which the jury may reasonably infer that the crime has been committed, the question must be submitted to the jury, and other evidence tending to implicate the accused is thereby rendered admissible."

It was further held that--

"Inconclusive facts and circumstances tending prima facie to show the corpus delicti may be aided by the admissions or confession of the accused, so as to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and so to support a conviction, although such facts and circumstances, standing alone, would not thus satisfy the jury of the existence of the corpus delicti."

We are of the opinion that the evidence in this case was sufficient upon which the jury could find the crime had in fact been committed, and that the defendant was the guilty agent though there were no eye-witnesses, and the evidence was circumstantial. Ducett v. State, 186 Ala. 34, 65 So. 351.

The defendant and his wife resided in Birmingham; living with them was a Mrs. Day. The defendant possessed a Hudson car. The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant's wife came to the Bessemer Hotel in Bessemer, Ala., about 9:30 o'clock on the night of Friday, February 22d; that she had been coming there, occasionally, since some time in January; and that the defendant had been there with her, and, further, that defendant and his wife had registered at the hotel on January 19th, previous. On this particular night, however, she came there alone, the defendant following her, reaching the hotel about 12 o'clock the same night; that they left the hotel together about 12:30 in his car, coming toward Birmingham. The evidence further tended to show that upon reaching the hotel the defendant went to his wife's room and they were heard to engage in a quarrel, he demanding a check and threatening to take her from the hotel and kill her, and demanded that she dress and go with him. He was seen with a knife in his hand, and one witness testified that, when they reached the foot of the stairs, "he jerked her by the hair," and that, after they got in the car, they heard a woman scream. At about 1 o'clock, it appears that the defendant arrived at his home in Birmingham, where Mrs. Day assisted him in carrying his wife into the house; she having a very serious wound upon the head as well as being otherwise bruised and in an unconscious condition. A physician was called, and defendant's wife taken to the hospital; he [[[defendant] and Mrs. Day accompanying her. The wound upon the head caused a brain hemorrhage, and the defendant's wife died the next day about noon without having regained consciousness.

The defendant was questioned by officers, and he insisted that his wife received her injuries as the result of an accident while they were out riding coming toward Birmingham, and accompanied the officers to the scene of the accident. To one of the officers he stated he had not been to Bessemer, but that he and his wife had been to ride on the Bessemer road as far down as Lipscomb, and that on the way back, at a point near the Grasselli Chemical Works, he swerved his car to the left in order to avoid striking some cows which were on his side of the road, and that his wife fell out of the car. To another officer he stated, in substance, the same in regard to avoiding the cows; and, further, that there was a hole in the road, and that as he swerved he saw he was going into this...