Steele v. State

• Decision Date: 25 January 1888
• Parties: STEELE v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

3 So. 547

83 Ala. 20

STEELE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 25, 1888

Appeal from city court, Montgomery county; THOMAS M. ARRINGTON Judge.

Indictment for murder. The defendant in this case, Tarleton Steele, was indicted for the murder of Lou Anderson, "by striking her with an axe-helve," was tried on the issue joined on the plea of not guilty, convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hanged. On the trial, as the bill of exceptions states, it appears that, at time of the killing, and for some time before, the defendant and the deceased were living together as man and wife on a plantation in Montgomery county which belonged to Walters Bros., or was cultivated by them; that screams were heard to proceed from the cabin occupied by them (defendant and Lou Anderson) on the night of March 23, 1887; that the defendant was seen early the next morning, coming towards the cabin from the direction of some woods a half a mile or more distant; that he borrowed some money on the night of that day from Mr Duncan Walters, saying that the deceased had left him, and that he wanted to go after her; that search was instituted for the deceased on the next day, and her body was found in the woods, "burned almost beyond recognition, and with her skull fractured;" that the defendant was arrested a day or two afterwards, on a plantation about 10 miles distant, which was also controlled by Walters Bros.; that being charged with the murder when arrested, and asked to tell all he knew about it, "he declined to make any statement, but said that he would tell Mr. Duncan Walters all about it." Said Walters, being then examined as a witness, testified that the defendant, "being in a closed room with him and his brother, and being asked to tell all he knew about the matter, and to tell the truth, made, in substance, the following confession: ' That he struck the deceased with an axe-helve, during a quarrel between them, and the blow killed her almost instantly; and that he carried her body, she being dead, to the woods, about a mile from the house,' where it had been found, ' and there burned it;' and the witness stated "that no threat had been made, nor any inducement held out to the defendant in any way whatever, to induce a confession." The witness further testified, on cross-examination, that the defendant's first statement was " that the deceased did not die in the house and was carried thence by him to the place where she was found, but that she ran out of the house on receiving the blow, and walked very near to the place where her body was found, and there died. That he followed her to where she fell, took her head in his lap, and tried to bring her back to life, but she died in a few minutes. " That he (witness then told the defendant "that this statement would not be believed; that it was an impossibility for a woman to walk that distance with her skull fractured, and that physicians would be put on the stand who would so swear and that he must tell a straighter tale than that, if he hoped to be believed." That the defendant "thereupon became sullen, would look at him, and show his teeth; would not proceed at all for some time, and then hesitatingly gave the statement first above mentioned." It was shown, also, "that the witness was the employer of the defendant, that the relation of landlord and tenant had existed between them for more than a year, and that the arrest had been made by parties acting under the instructions of the witness." On this evidence, the defendant moved the court to exclude from the jury "that a part of the confession stating that the deceased died in the house, and had been removed by the defendant to the woods;" and he expected to the overruling of his motion. The defendant adduced proof of his own peaceable character, and evidence showing the quarrelsome and violent character of the deceased, and offered to prove by Adam Anderson "that the deceased was a violent woman; was at one time imprisoned in the jail to Lowndes county for assault and battery. Also, that he (witness) had once lived with her, and had discontinued the association on account of her violent and desperate character; believing that, if he lived with her any longer, he would have to kill her, or she kill him." The court excluded all the testimony of this witness, on objection by the state, and the defendant excepted. Jack Davis, another witness for the defendant, testified "that he lived with the deceased for several years, and finally had to quit her on account of her violent disposition." The court excluded this evidence also, on objection by the state, and defendant excepted. The defendant requested two charges, which are thus stated in the bill of exceptions: "The following charges in writing were asked and refused: '(1) If the jury find that a fracture of the skull on the back of the head may be produced by a blow on another part of the head, this will be sufficient to leave it doubtful as to what part of the head it was on which the blow in this case was inflicted.' Exception was taken. '(2) In looking to the condition of the skull of the deceased, the jury will look at the fact that the condition of the skull on which the prosecution asks them to presume that the blow was delivered on the back of the head is testified to by witnesses unskilled in medicine or anatomy; also that, if skilled medical experts have testified that the condition of the skull described by the witness could have been caused by a blow delivered on the front part of the head, the jury must look at this testimony, and it is entitled to great weight; and they may also look at corroborating testimony furnished by the defendant, as the broken knife, and the scars on his hand.' The foregoing bill of exceptions is signed in term-time." As to the organization of the petit jury, the bill of exceptions contains the following recital: "The regular venire, a copy of which had been served on the defendant,...