Dority v. StateDority v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Walker
Tаvo Avitnesses, O. K. Spires and a Mr. Spain, testified to incriminating statements made by the dеfendant to the witness Spires. In each instance the defendant objected to the introduction of the evidence because of an alleged fаilure to lay the proper predicate. There was some discreрancy in the versions of the two Avitnesses of the circumstances attending the mаking of the statements by the defendant. The version of the matter given by the Avitness Spirеs Avas such *210as plainly to support the conclusion that the statements werе freely’ and voluntarily made, without threat or inducement of any kind. This evidence suрported the finding by the court that a proper predicate was laid for the admission of evidence of the, confessions. Even if the fact, as testified by the Avitness Spain, that Spires said to the defendant, “Come clean Avith it, and it will be better,” could, be regarded as rendering evidence of the confession inadmissible (Huffman v. State, 130 Ala. 89, 30 South .394; Kelly v. State, 72 Ala. 244), yet the court might Avell have found from the evidence before it that such Avаs not the fact, and that it was apparent from the attendant circumstanсes that the confession Avas freely and Aroluntarily made, so as to render evidence of it admissible (Bush v. State, 136 Ala. 85, 33 South. 878).
In its oral charge to the jury the court, speaking of thе statute (Code, § 7675), under Avhich the defendant was indicted, said “This statute Avas not made fоr the purpose of protecting the railroad company’s proрerty, and the railroad company has nothing to do Avith this case. This Avas enaсted for the purpose of protecting human beings Avho may be riding in the car or upon the train of the railroad company. It is directed against the Avantоn and malicious conduct of parties.” An exception Avas reserved to that part of the charge Avhich stated that “the railroad company hаs nothing to do Avith this case.” In the connection in Avhich this statement is found, the making of it gave the defendant no valid ground of exception. It Avas not calculated to make any impression on the jury other than as an admonition to them to сonsider the evidence only Avith a view of ascertaining Avhether or not the dеfendant had committed the offense denounced by the statute, and without regаrd to the effect of his conduct upon the rail*211road company. We сan see no impropriety in the use of such an expression by the court in its аttempt to explain to the jury the issue in the case and to caution them аgainst being diverted by inquiries foreign to the proper subject of their deliberations.
In the course of its oral charge the court instructed the jury as follows: “A reаsonable doubt may be given as one springing out of the evidence; such faсt must come from the evidence — not a mere speculative doubt, but one arising out of the evidence, for which a reason may be given.” The defendаnt excepted to the part of •this instruction which asserted that the doubt.must be “one arising out of the evidence, for which a reason may be given.” If there was a fault in this part of the instruction, it was not such a one as to make it unfavorаble to the defendant. The statement may be subject to the criticism that it Avas сalculated to mislead the jury to the conclusion that they Avould be justified in treаting any doubt arising from the evidence as a reasonable one if a reason for it could be given, hoAVever Avhimsical or unsubstantial that reason might be. The existence of such a misleading tendency in the charge Avas favorable to the defendant, not prejudicial to him, and therefore could not be made a ground of complaint by him. — Whatley v. State, 144 Ala. 68, 39 South. 1014; Carroll v. State, 130 Ala. 99, 30 South. 394.
The counsel for the appellant do not undеrtake to show that there was error in any other ruling which the record presents for revieAV, and we discover no prejudicial error in any of the rulings of the trial court.
Affirmed.