Smith v. State

• Decision Date: 12 May 1903
• Citation: 34 So. 396,137 Ala. 22
• Parties: SMITH v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

34 So. 396

137 Ala. 22

SMITH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 12, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wilcox County; John Moore, Judge.

Frank Smith was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed.

The evidence tending to connect the defendant with the killing of Bob Davidson was partly circumstantial. The killing occurred about dark. There was evidence for the state tending to show that near the place of the killing there were found tracks which corresponded more or less to the defendant's tracks. The defendant was introduced as a witness in his own behalf. During the cross-examination of the witness by the solicitor, he was asked the following question "Didn't you tell J. M. Smith, in Greenville jail about three days after you were arrested, you would tell him all about it after you heard from Mr. Tom Kendrick, or words to that effect--or to wait until you saw Mr. Kendrick, and you would then tell him all about it?" The defendant objected to this question, because it called for a statement by the defendant, which, with other statements made by him at the same time, had been offered in evidence by the state as a confession on the part of the defendant, and which had been excluded by the court because not shown to have been voluntarily made. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant, as a witness answered that he did not make any such statement. The defendant was then asked by the state if he did not make statements to different witnesses which tended to connect him with the crime. The defendant objected to each of these questions, upon the ground interposed to the question above set out, and also upon the further ground that it called for incompetent, inadmissible, and irrelevant evidence. The court overruled each of these several objections, and to each of these rulings the defendant separately excepted. J. M. Smith was introduced as a witness for the state in rebuttal, and testified that the defendant did make the statement to him while in jail which the defendant denied having made. There were other witnesses introduced by the state, in rebuttal who testified to the defendant having made several statements to them, respectively, which the defendant denied having made, in his cross-examination. The other facts of the case relating to the rulings of the trial court upon the evidence, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: "(1) The court charges the jury that if they have a reasonable doubt, growing out of any part of the evidence, as to the guilt or innocence of defendant, he is entitled to the benefit of such doubt, and should be acquitted." "(10) The court charges the jury that before they can convict the defendant they must be satisfied to a moral certainty, not only that the proof is consistent with the defendant's guilt, but that it is wholly inconsistent with every other rational conclusion; and, unless the jury are so convinced by the evidence of defendant's guilt that they would each venture to act upon that decision in matters of highest concern and importance to his own interest, then they must find the defendant not guilty." "(16) The court charges the jury that if they find from the evidence that a confession would not have been made but for the influence of hope or fear excited in the mind of defendant, held out or made by a person or persons in authority, they may look to these circumstances under which such confession was made to aid them in the conclusion as to its truth." "(19) The court charges the jury that if, in view of all the evidence, they are not satisfied that a confession was made freely, voluntarily, or intelligently or if it is not harmonious and consistent with the other evidence, it should be rejected as wanting in credibility, or as not entitled to weight in determining the question of guilt or innocence." "(22) The court charges the jury that, before they can convict the defendant upon a statement made by him, they must believe that he made said statement, that it is true in fact, that it is consistent with the other...