Smith v. State, 5 Div. 546
Decision Date | 18 August 1959 |
Docket Number | 5 Div. 546 |
Citation | 40 Ala.App. 393,114 So.2d 295 |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Parties | Robert Elmore SMITH v. STATE. |
Wilbanks & Wilbanks, Alexander City, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment charged that defendant, against the order of nature, carnally knew Annie Ruth Spivey. Title 14, Sec. 106, Code 1940.
The state's evidence is fairly and substantially set out in the Attorney General's brief in this language.
Prosecutrix testified she told Officer Pike defendant cut her coat, and she took the coat with her when she went to swear out the warrant.
Defendant testified Annie Ruth Spivey called to him as he was walking down the street. She asked where he was going and suggested they go to the Bragg White's basement. There they engaged in an act of sexual intercourse, which was with prosecutrix' consent. When they left the basement prosecutrix demanded $20 from defendant. When he told her he had no money, she said: 'You are going to need $20.00, because I am going to get a warrant for you for rape.' Defendant denied that he had ever committed a crime against nature with prosecutrix or with anyone else.
Mr. John Pike, deputy sheriff of Tallapoosa County, and Lieutenant Henry Pless, of the Alexander City police force, testified they talked with Annie Ruth Spivey at the police station when complaint was made in this case. Prosecutrix never showed them the coat, did not mention having been cut herself or of the coat's having been cut, and in fact never mentioned the coat.
The evidence presented questions for the jury's determination, and was sufficient to sustain the judgment of conviction. There was no error in the court's refusal of the affirmative charge nor in the denial of the motion for a new trial.
It is insisted the court erred in allowing Bessie Lawson, sister of Annie Ruth Spivey, to testify that early Sunday morning prosecutrix made a complaint to her about Elmore Smith.
The settled rule is that on direct examination in prosecutions for rape, carnal knowledge and like offenses, such testimony is confined to the fact that complaint was made, and where and to whom it was made. The details of the occurrence and the identity of the person accused must not be shown. Daniell v. State, 37 Ala.App. 559, 73 So.2d 370; Hall v. State, 248 Ala. 559, 26 So.2d 566. However, in view of defendant's testimony that he was present at the time and place stated by Annie Ruth Spivey, and that he had intercourse with her and with her consent, admission of such evidence was without injury. Supreme Court Rule 45, Code 1940, Tit. 7 Appendix; Hall v. State, supra.
On cross-examination of defendant as a witness in his own behalf, the following occurred:
'Q. (By Mr. Adair) Elmore Smith, I will ask you whether or not you have ever been convicted and sent to a penitentiary?
'Mr. Wilbanks: And we object to that, Your Honor.
'The Court: Overruled.
'Mr. Wilbanks: We reserve an exception.
'The Court: It will have to be for a felony, a crime involving moral turpitude.
'Mr. Adair: Yes, sir.
'The Court: Ask him what for.
'Q. I will ask you whether or not you were convicted of a charge of malicious shooting and wounding in Jefferson County Circuit Court, Criminal Division, and received therefor a ten year prison sentence? A. I was innocent of that charge, but I did pull the time.
'Q. You were convicted of that? A. That's right, I was.
'Q. Where was that? A. Louisville, Kentucky.
'Q. When was that? A. In '47.
'The Court: Gentlemen, that is limited altogether to shed light on the credit that you would give one who had been previously convicted of a felony and it is admitted for no other purpose.'
It is insisted that the court was in error in permitting the state to show defendant's conviction in the state of Kentucky, because it was not shown he was convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude. Appellant's counsel contends the offense of shooting and wounding is analogous to the Alabama crime of assault and battery with a weapon, an offense not involving moral turpitude. Chappelle v. State, 267 Ala. 37, 99 So.2d 431. Although we think the question was not properly raised, since no such ground of objection was made to the question as first framed and no objection was interposed to the question as rephrased, we would point out that in Dickey v. State, 32 Ala.App. 413, 26 So.2d 532, it was said that ordinarily the conviction of a crime punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary involves moral turpitude within the meaning of Sections 434 and 435, Title 7, Code 1940.
'Moral turpitude signifies an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, depravity,' Gillman v. State, 165 Ala. 135, 51 So. 722, 723; Moore v. State, 12 Ala.App. 243, 67 So. 789. It excludes unintentional wrong, or an improper act done without unlawful or improper intent. Drazen v. New Haven Taxicab Co., 95 Conn. 500, 111 A. 861. "Malicious' means with fixed hate, or done with wicked intentions, or motives not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Romine v. State
...Thompson v. State, 53 Ala.App. 484, 301 So.2d 248 (1974); Etheridge v. State, 47 Ala.App. 233, 252 So.2d 655 (1971); Smith v. State, 40 Ala.App. 393, 114 So.2d 295 (1959). The substance of the note was the implication of the defendant's presence at the scene of the alleged crime and his com......
-
Page v. State, 4 Div. 334
...of discretion is clearly shown. Page v. State, 273 Ala. 5, 130 So.2d 227; Fuller v. State, 269 Ala. 312, 113 So.2d 153; Smith v. State, 40 Ala.App. 393, 114 So.2d 295; Lassiter v. State, 38 Ala.App. 287, 83 So.2d 365, cert. denied 263 Ala. 618, 83 So.2d Appellant argues that as the record s......
-
Word v. State
...for the exclusion thereof. We find, in accordance with Watson v. State, 15 Ala.App. 39, 72 So. 569, 571 (1916), and Smith v. State, 40 Ala.App. 393, 114 So.2d 295, 298 (1959), that whatever error, if any there was, in sustaining the State's objection to the question, the error was without i......
-
Etheridge v. State, 3 Div. 57
...and with her consent, therefore defendant's rights were not prejudiced by the ruling in this case. Hall v. State, supra; Smith v. State, 40 Ala.App. 393, 114 So.2d 295. The prosecutrix was asked on cross examination whether or not she had previously asked defendant to allow her to come and ......