Williams v. State, 1 Div. 678.
| Citation | 224 Ala. 6,138 So. 291 |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 678. |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Claude A. Grayson, Judge.
Charley alias Charlie, Williams was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
P. C Fountain and Graham A. Sullivan, both of Mobile, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The trial was had on an indictment for rape; the jury found a verdict of guilty as charged; and the punishment imposed was that "he suffer death by electrocution."
No point is made upon the record proper; and it has been examined and found regular.
A motion for continuance for the issuance of an attachment for a witness, because of his absence, should disclose, among other things, the fact that the witness was available or within the jurisdiction of the court at the time of the trial; and it is held there was no error in the court's refusal to delay the trial and issue an attachment for a witness in the absence of a proper showing. Gaines v. State, 146 Ala. 16, 41 So. 865; Walker v. State, 117 Ala. 85, 23 So. 670; Knowles v. Blue, 209 Ala. 27, 32, 95 So. 481.
The court issued an attachment for the witness, Dr. J. H. Dodson, returnable instanter, and required that he be put under bond when apprehended. Whereupon counsel for defendant stated that he (counsel) was informed that the witness "has left town, and if he has, is your Honor going to allow us a showing in that?" to which the court replied that deputies were making a diligent search for the witness and his information was "that he is out of the jurisdiction of the court." The sheriff so reported and returned.
There was no reversible error committed by the trial court in declining to grant the motion for continuance, or to put the state upon the unsworn showing, as presented by the record proper.
There was no error in admitting evidence as to the condition of prosecutrix' sexual organs, and of the development and presence of venereal disease in the child. The physician, perceiving the venereal disease with which defendant was affected when arrested, made periodic examinations of the person of the child to note whether or not there was development of like disease in her person. Such being the fact, that evidence was competent on corpus delicti and identification. Malloy v. State, 209 Ala. 219, 96 So. 57.
The immediate signs of injury on the person of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Vanpelt v. State
-
Payne v. State
...of two persons summoned as witnesses by defendant, but who were shown to be without the State by the return of the sheriff. Williams v. State, 224 Ala. 6, 138 So. 291. The trial court did not err to a reversal in refusing to grant a continuance in order that counsel for defendant might inst......
-
Gast v. State
...443, 137 So. 33; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Lovell, 196 Ala. 94, 71 So. 995; Pope v. Ryals (Ala.Sup.) 167 So. 721; Williams v. State, 224 Ala. 6, 138 So. 291; Bass v. State, 219 Ala. 282, 122 So. Kilpatrick v. State, 213 Ala. 358, 104 So. 656; Jones v. State, 181 Ala. 63, 61 So. 434. ......
-
Oliver v. State
...the rule that obtains. There was no error in allowing Dr. Sewell, who qualified as an expert, to testify for the state (Williams v. State, 224 Ala. 6, 138 So. 291; Kilpatrick v. State, 213 Ala. 358, 104 So. Bass v. State, 219 Ala. 282, 122 So. 45); as one who is shown to be sufficiently fam......