Washington v. State

• Decision Date: 11 April 1895
• Citation: 106 Ala. 58,17 So. 546
• Parties: WASHINGTON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 546

106 Ala. 58

WASHINGTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 11, 1895

Appeal from city court of Mobile; O. J. Semmes, Judge.

R. B Washington was convicted of larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.

The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant was employed by the Mobile Light & Railway Company to haul coal from the cars, which were located at a certain place on a certain street in the city of Mobile, to the power house of the said corporation; and that, while so engaged in hauling the coal, he sold some of it, and had it hauled away to the person to whom it was sold; and that this sale was made through his agents. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, denied having sold any of the coal, and introduced evidence tending to impeach some of the state's witnesses. The two persons whom the state's evidence tended to show were the agents or accomplices of the defendant in making the sale were arrested and put in jail at the same time as the defendant. These two persons, as witnesses for the state, testified as to certain confessions made by the defendant, tending to show that he was guilty of the offense charged in the indictment. As preparatory to the introduction of these confessions, and as tending to show that they were voluntary, the said witnesses testified that the statements were made by the defendant while they were in prison. The witnesses further testified that, after they were arrested, they were carried to the office of the chief of police several times; and they were asked by the defendant's counsel the following question "Didn't chief say it would be better for you to tell the truth?" The witness answered: "Might have said so, but I cannot say really." The defendant objected to these witnesses testifying to the confessions, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his objections.

Leslie B. Shelden, for appellant.

William C. Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

COLEMAN J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of grand larceny. A great many exceptions were reserved to the ruling of the court upon the admission and exclusion of evidence introduced or offered in the progress of the trial. In almost every instance the objection seems to have been of a general character, without specifying any particular ground of objection. A general objection is sufficient when the evidence offered is patently and palpably inadmissible for any purpose. When the evidence offered is not of this character, the court is not bound to cast about for the grounds of the objection. Furthermore, a party cannot sit by and hear a question propounded, without objection, calculated to elicit illegal or irrelevant evidence which may be favorable to him, and, after the question has been answered raise an objection to the question or to the answer if it is responsive. Parties will not be allowed to speculate in this way. The rule requires that the party appealing must affirmatively show error.

Confessions to be admissible, must be voluntary, and that they were voluntary must appear. This is usually shown by an examination void dire as to promises and threats, etc. Where however, the facts and circumstances under which they were made affirmatively show that there were no improper influences...