Taylor v. State, 4 Div. 847.
Citation | 20 So.2d 239,31 Ala.App. 590 |
Decision Date | 19 December 1944 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 847. |
Parties | TAYLOR v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Ralph A. Clark and C. B. Fuller, both of Andalusia, for appellant.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case charges appellant with murder in the second degree. There was a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree.
Appellant and deceased, John Davis, lived in the same neighborhood. On the afternoon of the night of the alleged homicide the two left Opp, Alabama, for home in the former's one-horse wagon.
According to the testimony of appellant, after dark, about 7 p. m. they reached a junction in the highway where a road led off to the dwelling of the deceased. At this place, a dispute arose over the insistence of deceased that he be carried all the way to his residence and appellant's urgency that he did not have time to make the additional journey. Deceased began cursing and threatening to kill the defendant, and the disagreement reached a climax when deceased, in an attempt to cut appellant with a pocket knife, did cut his shirt and sweater. The affray continued from the wagon seat to the ground, where deceased still persisted in his assault. It was at this time that appellant, by the use of his pocket knife cut at the deceased but did not know whether or not he, in fact, inflicted any wounds. A short time later, Mr. Davis was discovered in a ditch by the side of the road with three stab wounds in the front of his body, two in the back and some lacerations on his arm and inside one of his hands. He died before any one reached him. Immediately after the difficulty, appellant went home and was arrested soon thereafter. The officers found him in bed. With the exception of the two participants, no one was present or saw the encounter.
The sheriff testified with reference to the contents of two statements alleged to have been made by appellant, one at the time of the arrest and another while en route from the scene of the homicide to Opp. At the former time, appellant stated 'that he had had trouble with Mr. Davis and cut him.' On the latter occasion, he said 'he cut him but didn't know he killed him.'
It was brought out on the cross-examination of the sheriff that when they reached Opp appellant was forthwith taken to the office of the solicitor. There the defendant made substantially the same statement he had made theretofore to the sheriff, and it was reduced to writing. When this was developed in the testimony, counsel for appellant moved to exclude the two statements above quoted on the ground that the same were in writing and therefore the writing was the best evidence. Clearly, this point is not well taken. The fact that appellant subsequently made a reaffirmation of an oral confession and the latter was put in writing would not render inadmissible, for this lone reason, the prior confession. The evidence sought to be obtained in the instant inquiry was the contents of the oral statements made to the sheriff by the appellant before they reached the solicitor's office. The refusal of the court to exclude the statements was obviously correct. 6 Ala.Digest, Criminal Law, k531.
The cases of Shelton v. State, 217 Ala. 465, 117 So. 8; Garner v. State, 26 Ala.App. 246, 158 So. 543, and Dodd v. State, 26 Ala.App. 367, 160 So. 267, cited by appellant's counsel, are without value as authorities in support of the insistence here made.
The Shelton case merely holds that the fact a confession has been reduced to writing by another person presents no objection to its admissibility.
We quote from a headnote in the Garner case: 'In embezzlement prosecution, testimony of expert accountant based on report made by him of audit of books of city was improperly admitted because hearsay where books were not in evidence and were not equally accessible to both parties.'
In the Dodd case, the court held that a statement signed by the defendant, conflicting with his testimony on the main trial, was admissible.
State's witness, Mrs. Merritt, who lived in the immediate community, testified that appellant came to her house soon after the homicide and there voluntarily stated 'that he had had a little trouble and that he had killed Mr. Davis and he said if he had a gun he would go back up there and blow his brains out.'
The court overruled a motion of counsel for appellant to exclude 'what he would do.'
We do not wish to be understood as holding the motion to exclude is sufficiently certain, but to avoid being technical we will review the matter nevertheless.
We are of the opinion that the statement taken in its entirety includes the voluntary acknowledgment of the guilt of the accused of the offense charged and no part of it should have been taken from the consideration of the jury. Scott v. State, 211 Ala. 270, 100 So. 211; Mathews v. State, 136 Ala. 47, 33 So. 338.
The body of the decedent was discovered about 50 or 60 yards from the dwelling of State witness, J. A. Jowers. Mr. Jowers testified that, from the vantage of his home, about thirty minutes prior to the time he saw the body in the ditch, he heard a voice 'out there.' The witness stated also that he had known Mr. Davis for about five years. During this period, he had talked with him from time to time and had become familiar with the tone and sound of his voice.
On direct examination the record discloses:
The court sustained objection to this last question.
The witness was recalled, and we find:
Over the objections of appellant's counsel, the witness answered:
The court overruled a motion to exclude the statement. On cross-examination the witness answered:
' voice.
voice because you saw him out there later? A. Yes, I saw him later.
'
Counsel for appellant at this place in the proceedings made a motion to exclude the statement, which motion the court overruled.
We find no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that testimony is admissible to establish identity by one who is familiar with the voice of the person sought to be identified--and it is not to be considered as a circumstance, but proof positive of the fact, and its probative value is a question for the jury to determine. In this view we are supported by a long list of well-considered authorities. Among them are: Orr v. State, 225 Ala. 642, 144 So. 867; Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52, 46 So. 273; 20 Am.Jur., Sec. 351, p. 326; Penington et al. v. State, 91 Fla. 446, 107 So. 331; Mack v. State, 54 Fla. 55, 44 So. 706, 13 L.R.A.,N.S., 373, 14 Ann.Cas. 78; State v. Vanella, 40 Mont. 326, 106 P. 364, 20 Ann.Cas. 398; Froding et al. v. State, 125 Neb. 322, 250 N.W. 91.
It is not required for the admissibility of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dolan v. Mitchell, 24567
...v. People, 148 Colo. 538, 367 P.2d 339 (1961). See also Sorrell v. Scheuer, 209 Ala. 268, 96 So. 216 (1923); Taylor v. State, 31 Ala.App. 590, 20 So.2d 239 (1944); Barnes v. State, 31 Ala.App. 187, 14 So.2d 242 (1943); Martin v. State, 16 Ala.App. 406, 78 So. 322 (1918). Under the circumsta......
-
Hayes v. State
...pertinent hypothesis that would in any degree influence the factual issues. Martin v. State, 16 Ala.App. 406, 78 So. 322; Taylor v. State, 31 Ala.App. 590, 20 So.2d 239. Admittedly, the brother whose testimony we are now shot the defendant twice with a shotgun. This occurred at the place of......
-
Smitherman v. State
...33 So.2d 396 33 Ala.App. 316 SMITHERMAN v. STATE. 5 Div. 244.Alabama Court of AppealsJanuary 13, 1948 [33 So.2d 397] . . ...406, 78 So. 322; Barnes v. State, 31. Ala.App. 187, 14 So.2d 242; Taylor v. State, 31. Ala.App. 590, 20 So.2d 239. . . We are. led ......
-
Denson v. State, 4 Div. 969.
...v. State, 71 Ala. 351.' See also, Blue v. State, 246 Ala. 73, 19 So.2d 11; Brown v. State, 21 Ala.App. 611, 110 So. 694; Taylor v. State, 31 Ala.App. 590, 20 So.2d 239. questions are raised for review to the introduction of the testimony. The general affirmative charge for the defendant con......