Rogers v. State, 3 Div. 755
| Decision Date | 21 June 1956 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 755 |
| Citation | 88 So.2d 685,264 Ala. 500 |
| Parties | Edward ROGERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
L. H. Walden and Geo. W. Cameron, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and J. Noel Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree under an indictment charging him that he killed McLendon Tolbert by setting him on fire, thus causing his death. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and fixed his punishment at death. From the sentence imposed by the court the case comes here under the Automatic Appeal Statute, Tit. 15, § 382(1) et seq., cum. pocket parts, p. 122 et seq. Consistent with our duty, we have searched the record for errors and find none. The case was well tried without substantial prejudice to the defendant.
We will only give a short statement of the facts in order to illustrate our rulings with reference to certain principles of law: The defendant, Ed Rogers (who by the way had a criminal record of serious crimes) and Emma Mae Bettis, as the Assistant Attorney General states in his brief, 'had lived together, more or less as husband and wife, for about two years prior to this event.' About three weeks before the crime, the defendant and this woman had some difficulty and they separated, the defendant living in a house behind hers. On the evening of February 21, 1955, the deceased, McLendon Tolbert, when the three were together, asked Emma Mae if she and defendant had 'quit' and Emma Mae said 'Yes, we have, we do not live together anymore,' and Tolbert said, 'I will be around to see you sometime,' and Emma Mae said 'OK, come when you get ready, you are welcome.' Emma Mae then went into her house and shortly thereafter defendant brought Tolbert into the house. Tolbert appeared to have been hurt in some way and defendant knocked Tolbert down on the sofa. He was evidently unconscious. Defendant then saturated the couch and the room with kerosene, told Emma Mae and the children to come with him, and before Emma Mae locked the door he threw a match into the kerosene and they all left in defendant's automobile going to a bootlegger at Trickum, a point between Montgomery and Selma, Alabama. After picking up some moonshine whiskey, the party returned to Montgomery and found that the house, with Tolbert in it, had been practically destroyed by fire. Tolbert, of course, was dead.
Considerable of the foregoing evidence was given by Emma Mae Bettis, and the first point argued is that the conviction cannot stand since she was an accomplice and there were no corroborating circumstances. Code of Alabama 1940, Tit. 15, § 307. We need not trouble to determine whether Emma Mae Bettis was an accomplice, since her testimony was corroborated by other evidence. Her nine year old son also testified that defendant knocked Tolbert on the couch and poured kerosene on the sofa, etc., and set it afire. Expert witnesses also testified that, in their opinion, there was some inflammable substance, either, gasoline or kerosene or some such, which caused the house to burn as it did. Other witnesses stated that a few minutes before the house was on fire, defendant, Emma Mae and her three children left the house in defendant's automobile. The foregoing and other evidence which is unnecessary to relate sufficiently corroborates the testimony of Emma Mae Bettis.
The argument is also advanced by appellant's counsel that the nine year old son of Emma Mae was not shown to be qualified. The contention cannot be sustained. On voir dire the witness was interrogated as follows:
' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harville v. State, 8 Div. 339
...rights of appellant and have found none. The judgment of conviction is affirmed. AFFIRMED. All the Judges concur. 1 "In Rogers v. State, 264 Ala. 500, 88 So.2d 685 (1965), a nine year old witness stated that he knew what it meant to tell the truth, that he was going to tell the truth, and t......
-
Tidwell v. State
...hours for holding court has been held to be directory only. T. 13, § 117; McNutt v. State, 23 Ala.App. 43, 121 So. 432; Rogers v. State, 264 Ala. 500, 88 So.2d 685. However, substance would be lost if all form were dispensed By officers required to serve the court, we do not consider as ind......
-
Bazzell v. State, 3 Div. 180
...section is directory only. McNutt v. State, 23 Ala.App. 43, 121 So. 432; Tidwell v. State, 41 Ala.App. 296, 130 So.2d 206; Rogers v. State, 264 Ala. 500, 88 So.2d 685. The trial court gave appellant two options as to the time to begin the trial of his case: (1) strike the jury and proceed a......
-
Roberson v. State
...as required by law. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the Circuit Court. AFFIRMED. All Judges concur. 1 In Rogers v. State, 264 Ala. 500, 88 So.2d 685 (1965), a nine year old witness stated that he knew what it meant to tell the truth, that he was going to tell the truth, and that......