Woods v. State
Decision Date | 21 January 1975 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 446 |
Citation | 310 So.2d 891,54 Ala.App. 591 |
Parties | Cletus WOODS v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Robert Straub, Decatur, Charles E. Carmichael, Jr., Tuscumbia, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., Montgomery, and George R. Stuart, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Birmingham, for appellee.
Voluntary manslaughter: sentence, ten years imprisonment.
This appeal was not taken In forma pauperis. Rule A of this Court, 48 Ala.App.
XXI, literally requires that appellant's brief be returned to him if there is no list of adverse rulings.
Under Code 1940, T. 15, § 389, we are required to search the record for error. This mandate existed long before Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493. Under this § 389 we 'must consider all questions apparent on the record (c.f. 15, § 383--writ of error) or reserved by bill of exceptions (now transcript of evidence) * * *.'
' Reserved' would seem to mean kept, held, retained or preserved. See Myers v. Conway & Co., 90 Ala. 109, 7 So. 639. 'Reserved' in this statute we hold to mean that a point is raised by protecting the record in that the party appealing properly sought and obtained from the trial court an adverse ruling. Unlike procedure in the English Court for Consideration Crown Cases Reserved, our statute in effect certifies the questions for appellate decision rather than making the certification a matter for the trial judge's discretion. In pari materia, with § 389, supra, we must construe T. 15, § 365, which (along with § 367) is the basis for all appeals from criminal convictions. This section reads as follows:
The first clause through the phrase 'as in civil cases'--except for the interpolation of the Court of Appeals--has appeared virtually verbatim in our permanent statutes since the Penal Code of 1866 (§ 751). The 1866 Penal Code, § 763, also contains the source of T. 15, § 389. See also, § 4314 of the Code of 1867.
However, the last sentence of § 389, viz: 'But the judgment of conviction must not be reversed * * *, when the court is satisfied that no injury resulted therefrom to the defendant.' first appears in § 4333 of the Code of 1897. 1
In Robinson v. State, 46 Ala. 9, we find:
'No brief or memorandum has been furnished to this court, pointing out or calling our attention to any particular error in the record.
'In such a case, no assignment of errors is necessary. It is made the duty of this court to examine the record, and render such judgment on the record as the law demands. Revised Code, § 4314.
'We think, however, the accused should furnish the court with a brief, or in some way call the attention of the court to the supposed error or errors in the record. It would save us much trouble However, Hunter v. State, 48 Ala. 272, says:
in otherwise having to examine the record, without any aid, to see whether any error or errors were committed in the proceedings to the injury of the accused.'
* * *'(Italics added).
In this context we have scanned the entire record proper and the transcript of evidence, together with the exhibits sent up. Also, we have considered the arguments advanced by the parties.
As a background we shall sketch the gist of the State's case. The deceased was Billy Corsbie who lived in a stationary mobile home at Corsbie's Hill, almost at the Mississippi line. Corsbie seems to have engaged in bootlegging with a black and white clientele drawn from (at least on Sunday) neighboring Mississippi, as well as the parched reaches of our shire of Colbert.
On the Sunday of the instant tragedy Woods had spent the night before at Corsbie's abode. The two, according to Deborah, the thirteen year old daughter of the deceased, profaned the Lord's Day by drinking well into the night. During wassailing as many as eighteen men were in a back bedroom rolling dice.
The jury was told that Corsbie and Woods devised a scheme whereby they would cheat some of the others, notably blacks, at dice. They agreed to pool their winnings and losses and split equally. Apparently, Corsbie welched and was found mortally wounded.
Woods, when apprehended, inculpated himself--after Miranda warnings--by saying, 'I meant to kill him.' (R. 103). Woods admittedly was within one of the 57 varieties of intoxication. See Holley v. State, 25 Ala.App. 260, 144 So. 535.
When this problem of incremental evaluation of alcoholic influence 2 occurs in homicides the Law throws its hands skyward and leaves the judgment to its Johannes Factotum, the jury.
But in the consideration of a tendered confession the trial judge always has a threshold question of law, viz, whether or not the statement is legally voluntary in nature. In Anderson v. State, 45 Ala.App. 653, 235 So.2d 902; Winn v. State, 44 Ala.App. 271, 207 So.2d 138; and Ray v. State, 39 Ala.App. 257, 97 So.2d 594, we have relatively recent decisions in this area where the confessant had been drinking.
From Anderson, supra, we quote from the opinion per Almon, J.:
'Appellant contends that his alleged confession was inadmissible because he was intoxicated at the time it was alleged to have been made, thus rendering anything he might have said involuntary.
'Evidence was heard on the voluntariness of the alleged confession out of the presence of the jury in accordance with Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908. There was ample evidence, even though conflicting, from which the trial judge could conclude that appellant was not intoxicated to the extent of mania. We conclude that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in admitting the alleged confession for the jury's consideration. Intoxication which
would affect the voluntariness of a confession is primarily a question of fact which first addresses itself to the trial judge to determine admissibility and later to be submitted to the jury for whatever consideration it may deem appropriate.
See also, Snow v. State, 50 Ala.App. 381, 279 So.2d 552; and Whitehurst v. State, 51 Ala.App. 613, 288 So.2d 152. There was no error here. 3
Citing Griffin v. State, 155 Ala. 88, 46 So. 481, appellant argues that the trial court erred (R. 138) in overruling an objection. We quote from the direct examination of Deputy Sheriff Vickery, a State witness:
'Q. Then where did you go?
'A. We left there. Our information was that Cletus had been there and had left going to Billy Corsbie's trailer.
We hold that whatever merit, there might have been in the posited ground of objection, it miscarried because the proper request was for an exclusion of the volunteered unresponsive answer. See Ivory v. State, 237 Ala. 344, 186 So. 460.
In Treadaway v. State, 18 Ala.App. 409, 92 So. 529, we find:
The rule making exclusion (or striking out) discretionary when the motion comes from the party who did not pose the question which furnished the occasion for the offending answer is predicated upon the answer being otherwise admissible.
* * *'Ivory v. State, supra, 237 Ala., at 346, 186 So., at 462.
In view of Woods' confession that he killed Corsbie under all the State's evidence the deed was done at the trailer. Therefore, even if defense had moved to strike, the ruling allowing this hearsay to come into evidence was harmless. Supreme Court Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Russell v. State
...Ala. 701, 151 So.2d 744 (1963). He may testify to the slant or angle of the gunshot wound and describe its character. Woods v. State, 54 Ala.App. 591, 310 So.2d 891 (1975) ; Mathis v. State, supra. An expert may testify about the direction from which the bullet was fired or the blow was str......
-
Saunders v. State
...Ala. 701, 151 So.2d 744 (1963). He may testify to the slant or angle of the gunshot wound and describe its character. Woods v. State, 54 Ala. App. 591, 310 So.2d 891 (1975); Mathis v. State, supra. An expert may testify about the direction from which the bullet was fired or the blow was str......
-
Magwood v. State
...of the meaning of his words. Boggan v. State, 455 So.2d 228 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 455 So.2d 228 (Ala.1984); Woods v. State, 54 Ala.App. 591, 310 So.2d 891 (1975). Even though Lynn was not present when Williams advised appellant of his Miranda rights, he was aware that appellant had......
-
Robitaille v. State
...Ala. 701, 151 So.2d 744 (1963). He may testify to the slant or angle of the gunshot wound and describe its character. Woods v. State, 54 Ala.App. 591, 310 So.2d 891 (1975); Mathis v. State, supra. An expert may testify about the direction from which the bullet was fired or the blow was stru......