Womack v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 768 |
| Parties | Eugene WOMACK v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gary F. Burns and J. Richard Carr, and A. L. Shumaker, Centre, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and John A. Lockett, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for first degree murder and life imprisonment.
Defendant, with two companions, drove an automobile to the home of deceased in a rural area. One of defendant's companions shot deceased with his own shotgun and all three then proceeded to ransack the premises. The body of deceased was found several days later on the ground near a pile of slabs. Some of the facts are set out in more detail in opinions affirming the convictions of defendant's companions in Beverly v. State, 281 Ala. 325, 202 So.2d 534, and Elrod v. State, 281 Ala. 331, 202 So.2d 539.
Defendant assigns for error the action of the court in admitting into evidence over defendant's objection a gruesome, grisly photograph of the body of deceased lying on the ground where it was found. Defendant says that the picture shows nothing which was in dispute or material to any issue in the case and 'that the only possible reason for introducing this picture into evidence is to inflame the minds of the jury to the extent that they will blindly find the defendant guilty of murder.'
Whether defendant's argument have merit or not, this court, in the two has cases last cited, held that a substantially identical photograph was admitted without error and we are not disposed to change that ruling in the instant case.
Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence State's Exhibits 4 and 6 which are search warrants ordering the Sheriff of Etowah County to search the premises of defendant for articles described in the warrants.
Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting the warrants into evidence over defendant's objection because the warrants are 'invalid' for two reasons.
First, defendant says the warrants are invalid because the officers who applied for the warrants testified that they obtained the warrants from the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Etowah County. Defendant says that the Clerk of the Circuit Court is not authorized by law to issue search warrants.
It is true that the officers did testify that they obtained the warrants from 'Howard Kirby, Circuit Clerk of Etowah County.' The warrants, however, are not signed by Howard Kirby as Clerk of the Circuit Court. Underneath his signature appear the following printed words:
'CLERK, ETOWAH COUNTY COURT.'
The Etowah County Court was created by Act No. 91, Acts of 1963, Vol. 1, page 475, which recites in part:
It thus appears that, although the person who issued the warrants was clerk of the circuit court, he did not issue them in that capacity but issued them as Clerk of the Etowah County Court who is expressly authorized by law to issue search warrants. Defendant's first objection to the validity of the warrants is not well taken. We do not undertake to decide whether a clerk of the circuit court has authority to issue a search warrant.
Second, defendant argues that the warrants are invalid because the jurisdiction of the Etowah County Court '. . . is limited to felonies committed within the county and that in order to secure a search warrant in this case, resort should have been had to a court of general jurisdiction and not to one purely local in nature.'
Section 1 of Act No. 91, supra, confers jurisdiction on the Etowach County Court as follows:
Defendant's argument seems to be that, because the jurisdiction of the Etowah County Court does not include crimes committed outside the county, Act No. 91 ought not to be construed to confer on an officer of that court authority to issue a search warrant in connection with a crime which was not committed in the county.
The following has been written concerning search warrants:
Sugar Valley Land Co. v. Johnson, 17 Ala.App. 409, 412, 85 So. 871.
Because the issuance of a search warrant is not in itself the commencement of a criminal action and may or may not be followed by a criminal action, we do not think that the authority to issue the warrant is limited to officers of those courts which have original or preliminary jurisdiction of criminal actions which may arise out of or in connection with the execution of the warrant.
So far as we are advised, this court has not determined or considered the limits of the territory within which an officer issuing a search warrant may authorize a search. General statutes regulating issue of search warrants appear in Title 15, §§ 99--118. In § 104, it is provided that the magistrate, on proper showing, must issue a search warrant '. . . directed to the sheriff, or to any constable Of the county . . ..' Statutes prescribe forms for search warrants. In § 105 of Title 15, the warrant is directed: 'To the sheriff or any constable of _ _ county.' In § 496, Title 13, Form 19, the warrant is directed: 'To any lawful officer of said county.'
By virtue of a statute providing that the jurisdiction of every justice of the peace shall be coextensive with his county and that he may issue process in matters within his jurisdiction, to be executed in any part of the county, the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that it was lawful for the justice to issue a search warrant to be served in and returnable before a justice of the peace in another district in the same county. Goffredo v. State, 145 Miss. 66, 111 So. 131.
Section 1 of Act No. 91, supra, expressly gives to the Etowah County Court 'county-wide jurisdiction as hereinafter provided.' We are of opinion that, when probable cause is adequately shown, Act No. 91 authorizes the Clerk of the Etowah County Court to issue warrants authorizing a search at any correctly described place in Etowah County. We think the clerk may issue a warrant authorizing a search in Etowah County for stolen property, although the property may have been stolen outside of that county and may have been stolen in connection with the commission of a crime at a place outside Etowah County. It appears that the decisive requirement is not that the issuing magistrate have jurisdiction of the criminal action which may be brought against the defendant for a crime in connection with which the property was stolen, but that the magistrate must have jurisdiction of the place at which the search is directed to be made.
Defendant's second ground of objection to validity of the warrants is without merit.
Defendant argues that the court erred in admitting into evidence certain articles which were found and seized by officers during searches made in execution of the search warrants. Defendant says the articles thus obtained were not admissible because they were the fruit of a search that was illegal because the warrants were invalid. We have already said that the invalidity of the warrants has not been shown. We are also of opinion that, since the warrants are not shown to be invalid, the searches under authority of the warrants have not been shown to be illegal and error in admitting the seized articles into evidence has not been shown.
The substantial question presented by this record is whether the court erred in admitting into evidence, over defendant's objection, a confession purportedly made by defendant.
As already stated, two search warrants were issued in this case. State's Exhibit 4 is a search warrant dated August 24, 1966. The sheriff's return on Exhibit 4 bears the same date. Deputy Sheriff Duke testified that he obtained the warrant on the day of its date and went to defendant's house about 3 p.m. that day in company with another deputy, Sheriff Garrett, and a State Investigator; that defendant was not at home when they arrived but came home twenty or thirty minutes later; that he, Duke, showed the warrant to defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMillian v. Johnson
...contends that Ex parte Matthews, 601 So.2d 52 (Ala.1992), Luttrell v. State, 551 So.2d 1126 (Ala.Cr.App.1989), Womack v. State, 281 Ala. 499, 205 So.2d 579 (1967), Ex parte Weeks, 531 So.2d 643 (Ala.1988), and Harris v. State, 280 Ala. 468, 195 So.2d 521 (1967) support his Count Three claim......
-
Johnson v. State
...the mind of the defendant that his case would be lightened, meliorated, or more favorably dealt with if he confessed. Womack v. State, 281 Ala. 499, 205 So.2d 579 (1967). A person inducing an accused to make a confession need not always be a law enforcement officer in order to render the co......
-
People v. Carigon
...498 F.Supp. 137 (W.D.Mo., 1980) (defendant told that it would be better to make a statement than not to make one); Womack v. State, 281 Ala. 499, 205 So.2d 579 (1967) (defendant told that authorities would go lighter on him if he made a statement); S.B. v. State, 614 P.2d 786 (Alaska, 1980)......
-
Walker v. State
...is enough to exclude the confession thereby superinduced.’ Williams v. State, 780 So.2d 673, 676 (Ala.2000) (quoting Womack v. State, 205 So.2d [579] at 587 (Ala.1967) ). However, Womack goes on to say that, ‘unless it is shown by clear and full proof that the confession was voluntarily mad......