Trott v. State

Decision Date08 May 1973
Docket Number3 Div. 28
Citation51 Ala.App. 40,282 So.2d 392
PartiesWilton O'Neal TROTT v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Criminal Appeals

J. Paul Lowery, Montgomery, for appellant.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Joseph G. L. Marston, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ALMON, Judge.

Wilton O'Neal Trott was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Mrs. Ila Hall, the deceased, operated a small grocery store in rural Autauga County. On the morning of December 28, 1965, neighbors noticed Mrs. Hall had not opened her grocery store at the usual time. They also observed lights on in the deceased's home. Upon investigation, the neighbors discovered the body of Mrs. Hall sprawled across her bed. Police were called and an investigation began. The State Toxicologist testified death resulted from a combination of wounds inflicted by a knife, gun shots, and bruises. He also testified a fingerprint of appellant was found in the house of deceased.

Testimony of several witnesses placed appellant in the vicinity of Mrs. Hall's home early in the evening on the day prior to which the body was discovered. One of these witnesses, W. M. Daniels, saw appellant's automobile parked on the side of the highway near deceased's home. Another witness, Claude Norris, testified appellant entered his service station on foot about 6:55 P.M. on the evening of December 27, bought some gasoline and left walking East. Later he reappeared in his automobile and returned the can in which the gas was put.

The only question presented by this appeal is whethere the court erred in admitting into evidence over appellant's objection an alleged confession made by him to police officers after he had been arrested. We will set out the evidence on this point in some detail.

Deputy Sheriff Norris Champion testified that on the evening of December 29, 1965, he was called and notified that the State Trooper Carlton had arrested appellant for reckless driving and had taken him to the sheriff's office of Autauga County; that he arrived at the sheriff's office at 6:15 P.M. and observed appellant sitting inside; that he did not attempt to question appellant with respect to the homicide but confined his question to 'how he was doing and where he had been;' that upon the arrival of Chief Deputy Sheriff Turner and State Investigators E. J. Dixon, John Jolley, and Bob Finley, appellant was photographed and fingerprinted; that at 8:00 P.M. he and Turner began to question appellant in an enclosed room; and that prior to any questioning appellant was told of certain constitutional rights he had by Turner in the following series of statements:

'Q. All right, sir. Now, what was the first thing--well, who spoke to him first, Mr. Champion, when you closed the door?

'A. I believe Mr. Turner did. Mr. Turner told him what we were going to talk to him about, and advised him of his rights.

'Q. What'd he say?

'A. Sir?

'Q. What'd he tell him, Mr. Champion?

'A. He told him about--we wanted to question him on this murder we had, and advised him of his rights--

'Q. All right. Tell the Court--tell the Court--

'A. And that he didn't have to tell us anything.

'Q. Tell the Court what he told him about his rights, and everything you can remember.

'A. Well, he told him that he had the right to call a Lawyer, if he wanted to--

'Q. All right. What else did he tell him?

'A. And that he didn't have to give us a statement, and that he thought we had enough evidence, without a statement on it.

'Q. All right sir. What else did he tell him?

'A. And so Trott said, 'Well, he didn't know anything about it.' 'He didn't know a thing about it.'

'Q. All right, sir. Now, Mr. Champion, go back to where--when--to--when Turner told him all about his rights. Just tell us--just tell us all that he said that you remember.

'A. Well, I don't remember, word for word, but he advised him that he had a right to call a Lawyer--

'Q. All right, sir. And what else?

'A. If he wanted to, and that he didn't have to give a statement.

'Q. All right, sir.

'A. And he told him if the statement--that the statement that he give may be used against him, in evidence.

'Q. All right, sir. What else?

'A. Well, that's about all I remember. Mr. Lowery, that he told him there.

'Q. All right sir. Is that--in your best judgment, is that all that was said concerning his rights--in your best judgment?

'A. In my best judgment, it is. Yes, sir.'

Champion testified that after being informed of his right to an attorney, the appellant said 'he didn't want a lawyer.'

Champion testified further that at this point Turner began to question appellant about the slaying of Mrs. Hall; that appellant told them, 'He didn't know a thing about it;' that during the interrogation which lasted, according to Champion's testimony, approximately two and one half hours, Turner and he alternated questioning appellant; that the total time Champion questioned appellant prior to appellant's first statement was approximately one hour; and that shortly after questioning began at 8:00 P.M., appellant was fed two cheeseburgers.

Sometime around 10:30 P.M. appellant indicated he would talk to Champion if Turner would leave the room; that Turner did leave the room and appellant 'told me all about what happened;' that after the oral statement Turner came back into the room and wrote the statement out in longhand on a yellow sheet; that at approximately 11:00 P.M. appellant was asked and did take off his clothing which was placed in a box and marked for identification; that shortly after 11:30 P.M. appellant took the officers to a point near Selma where Mrs. Hall's purse was recovered from a ditch by Champion; and that upon their return to the sheriff's office, Champion went home for the night.

On cross examination Champion testified that the appellant whom Champion had known four to five years appeared normal to him throughout the evening; that the appellant complained of being hungry and was fed; that while appellant indicated he had been taking 'bennie pills' no mention was made by him of drinking beer; that no 'pressure' was applied during the interrogation; and that the statement was not made under any threat, promise or hope of reward.

Chief Deputy Sheriff Robert Turner testified that he arrived at the sheriff's office at 6:30 P.M. the evening of December 29, 1965; that he observed appellant sitting in the lobby; that Turner inquired as to what appellant had been charged with and was told reckless driving; and that at 7:30 to 8:00 P.M. he made the following statements to appellant concerning his rights:

'Q. What did you say?

'A. I told him that he was under arrest for murder. That we had evidence implicating him in the murder of Mrs. Ila Hall, and that he didn't have to make a statement, and that if he wanted a lawyer, we'd get him one.

'Q. All right, sir.

'A. And anything he said might be used against him.

'Q. All right sir. Was there anything else? Did you tell him about his rights, or anything else?

'A. I asked him if he wanted to make a statement.

'Q. And what'd he say to that?

'A. And he said, 'I don't remember anything,' first, and then he said, 'I've been to Mobile, and just back--just got back to town,' and he first said he'd gone to Mobile after a load of whiskey, and then he remembered he threw something out on the highway, and as he gained his recollection, you might say, he told us just where he threw it out, and these were the articles we went and got.

'Q. All right, sir. Are these events you've--you're telling me about now, did they happen over a period of time, or right off--when you first started to questioning him?

'A. Yes, sir, they happened over a period of time--a few times, or a few minutes, I mean.

'Q. All right, sir. Now, then, you told us what you first said to him, and what he said. Now, then, what did--what questions did you ask him, in advising him of his rights?

'A. I asked him if he wanted to make a statement about Mrs. Hall.

'Q. All right, sir. And he said what?

'A. He said, 'No, he didn't want to make one right then.''

Turner further testified that immediately after a dinner break, which lasted one hour, Jolley and Champion asked him a few questions; that about 9:00 P.M. questioning resumed and shortly after 9:00 P.M. appellant asked Turner to leave the room, whereupon appellant made an oral statement to Champion; that afterwards he returned to the room and wrote the statement in longhand; that sometime after 9:30 P.M., Turner went with the other officers to recover Mrs. Hall's purse and a gasoline can used by appellant; that upon their return to the sheriff's office, Turner and E. J. Dixon prepared a statement; and that prior to this second statement appellant was informed in the following manner of his constitutional rights by Dixon:

'Q. Tell the Court, in substance, what rights, or what was said, by Dixon, to Trott, about his Constitutional rights, before he made that--made that statement.

'A. He was told that the statement--any statement he made could be used against him in court, and he was advised that he had a right to see a Lawyer, if he wanted one.

'Q. Uh hu.

'A. And he was not threatened, or abused, in any way, or promised any hope of reward.

'Q. All right, sir. Is there anything else, now, that was said to him, there?

'A. That's the best I can remember.

'Q. In your best judgment, is that all that was told him?

'A. That's all I can remember.

'Q. In your best recollection, and best judgment, is that all that he was advised--he was advised about his Constitutional rights?

'A. Yes, sir, I think so.'

Turner testified that he was firm with appellant during the interrogation but did not curse him; that no threat or promise or hope of reward was made to appellant; and that he read this statement to appellant and appellant signed it in his presence.

State Investigator E. J. Dixon testified that he arrived at the Autauga County Sheriff's office at 7:00...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Bracewell v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 22, 1980
    ...219 So.2d 377 (1969); Marcus v. State, 50 Ala.App. 526, 280 So.2d 786, cert. denied, 291 Ala. 350, 280 So.2d 793 (1973); Trott v. State, 51 Ala.App. 40, 282 So.2d 392, cert. quashed, 291 Ala. 800, 282 So.2d 402 (1973); United States ex rel. Williams v. Twomey, 7 Cir., 467 F.2d 1248 (1972). ......
  • Batteaste v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • May 4, 1976
    ...to a lawyer.' Appellant contends that the instant case is governed by Square v. State, 283 Ala. 548, 219 So.2d 377 and Trott v. State, 51 Ala.App. 40, 282 So.2d 392. Both Square and Trott were properly distinguished from this case in the State's brief. Square was informed, ". . .. We have n......
  • Kenny v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 30, 1973
  • Trott v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • August 30, 1973

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT