Whatley v. State
| Decision Date | 14 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 653 |
| Citation | 37 Ala.App. 706,75 So.2d 182 |
| Parties | Elsie Odell WHATLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of arson in the first degree and was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of three years.
Defendant's sole argument in brief is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict.
The testimony shows fire was discovered in the house occupied by defendant and his wife about 3:15 or 3:30 on Saturday morning, September 20, 1952. A few minutes earlier an automobile was heard to pull away from in front of the house. The house was of the duplex type, with three rooms on each side. According to the firemen the south side of the building had some furniture in it and the fire was mostly on that side. Three separate and unconnected fires were burning. The drawers of the vanity dresser, chifforobe and kitchen cabinet were pulled out and filled with wadded, kerosene soaked papers. The remains of a sofa or chair that had been saturated with kerosene was still burning. Holes had been cut or sawed through the plaster and laths and a fire was burning between the ceiling and roof.
There was no clothing, no household lines and no personal effects of any kind in the house except the furniture, two or three dishes and a few pots and pans.
All of the windows and the glass door were shielded by window shades, bed spreads, gunny sacks, etc.
James Collins, a Negro man, testified defendant had an arrangement for him to keep some hunting dogs. He said defendant came to his house Friday night about dark with two dogs in a trailer. He left the dogs and trailer and took another dog with him. He also left two boxes, a rifle, hose pipe, and a coil spring. After the fire the boxes were turned over to the authorities. This witness next saw defendant on Sunday night about 8:30 or 9:00 o'clock, when he picked up a dog but did not get the boxes and other articles.
Detective Davis testified he received the boxes from Collins. They contained the following assortment of personal effects: 1 breakfast table cloth; 1 carton and 7 pkgs. Camel cigarettes, 4 pkgs. Chesterfield; 2 pr. sox; necktie, handkerchief, steel tape; courtesy card from Texas Co. and one from Pure Oil Co., road maps; 1 percolator, aluminum; box of Ballard flour. Wrapped in a pillow case; 1/2 pkg. of corn meal wrapped in pillow case; 1 sifter; 1 biscuit pan; 1 house coat; misc. dish towels & rags; crochet pin cushion; wax paper; bill of sale for Chevrolet car from Paul Baker Motor Co.; misc. papers; toilet paper; ladies over rubber shoes; house shoes; men shoes; one electric fan Westinghouse; ladies gloves; ladies white shoes; man's belt; crocheting and thread and needles; misc. sewing material; baking powder; flashlight; toothpicks; ice cream freezer; light bulbs; bathing trunks; two pair pants; glass pitcher with towel wrapped around; hair brushes and hair setters; coffee; one automatic 22 caliber, Winchester rifle, Model 74; paint brush; ladies underwear; beauty parlor aprons; ladies shorts; dresser scarf; pair men's shoes; ladies galoshes; moth balls; girdle; knitted dollies; turkey call; 2 cans of sardines; abstract to house in Mobile, Lot No. 59 of Colgins Addition to Oakdale (now Mobile); abstract and attorneys opinion; homestead return; misc. important papers, legal, receipts, etc.; envelope of some old coins (mostly nickels and pennies); Merlin hair clippers in box; tea, salt and pepper shakers, mustard; 2 pocket knives; misc. small tools and electric fittings and hdwe.; badge; one box of misc. small items such as powder, shaving cream, toilet articles, kitchen stuff like soda, rice, etc.; one box containing fly spray, paint cans, wax and other bottles and cans.
This witness testified he also secured from the home of Mrs. Headrick, defendant's relative, 2 pistols, a kodak, 2 suit cases, clothing, bed linens and 2 pillows, which were introduced in evidence and other clothing was found at a cleaning establishment, placed there by defendant after the fire.
Mrs. Headrick testified she was defendant's niece. Mr. and Mrs. Whatley came to her home around 10:00 o'clock Sunday night after the fire. They brought with them a cosmetic bag, a small bag, a hat each, a camera with flash bulb attachment, 2 pistols, 2 pillows, some clothing on a hanger, small market basket of toilet article and a water jug. She turned these articles over to the authorities. She testified on cross-examination the Whatleys told her they had taken the articles to Mobile and they were the same items they had taken on a trip to the west coast and some of the men's clothing belonged to Mrs. Whatley's son. Defendant also left a dog trailer with dogs in her alley. He had parked the trailer there often during the six years she had lived there. The Whatleys spent Sunday night with her and after their release from jail stayed there for about three weeks.
There was evidence that Mrs. Whatley had two fire insurance policies, amounting to $3500, on the personal property located in the building. She recovered a total of $600 on both policies.
There was also testimony that the building was insured by the landlord for $2000 and that he recovered approximately $1300 after the fire. To this amount he added $150 of his own money to restore the building. The evidence was that the cost of replacing the building, in the event of total destruction, would have amounted to $4600.
The evidence on defendant's behalf tended to show that during the summer before he moved into the house he and Mrs. Whatley drove to the west coast for a visit to relatives. They took with them to California, in addition to their clothing, things to cook with on the side of the road, 'and anything we would need like that, we took a fan, an ice cream freezer and stuff we would use.' They also took a camera and a big pasteboard box in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolden v. State
...Cunningham v. State, 14 Ala.App. 1, 7, 69 So. 982, 985 (1915), and by circumstantial as well as direct evidence, Whatley v. State, 37 Ala.App. 706, 708, 75 So.2d 182, 185 (1954), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Locke, 527 So.2d 1347 (Ala.1988). See Franklin v. State, 502 So.2d 821, 827......
-
Harris v. State
...of defendant may be proven by circumstantial evidence as well as by direct evidence. . . ." (Citations omitted.) Whatley v. State, 37 Ala.App. 706, 75 So.2d 182 (1954). Circumstantial evidence is sufficient as long as it is so strong and cogent as to show the defendant's guilt to a moral ce......
-
Parker v. State
...176 (1950); Smith v. State, Ala.Cr.App., 342 So.2d 422 (1977); Bluth v. State, 38 Ala.App. 692, 92 So.2d 685 (1957); Whatley v. State, 37 Ala.App. 706, 75 So.2d 182 (1954); Byrd v. State, 37 Ala.App. 121, 73 So.2d 376, cert. denied, 261 Ala. 697, 73 So.2d 378 (1954). It is to be observed th......
-
Cox v. State
...Sumeral v. State, 39 Ala.App. 638, 106 So.2d 270 (1958); Bluth v. State, 38 Ala.App. 692, 92 So.2d 685 (1957); Whatley v. State, 37 Ala.App. 706, 75 So.2d 182 (1954). Mr. Justice Faulkner clearly summarized the hinge upon which the question turns in Tanner v. State, 291 Ala. 70, 71, 277 So.......