Drake v. StateDrake v. State
Cоoper Drake, a twenty-nine-year-old Negro man, was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced tо death by electrocution for the killing of Dale Holley, a four-year-old white boy. This appeal comes undеr the automatic appeal statute. Title 15, §.382(1) et seq., Code 1940.
The State’s evidence showed that on the aftеrnoon of the homicide, the deceased and his mother, Mrs. Kathleen Holley, were alone at their.home near Calera, Alabama. The house was located in an isolated section of the country near U. S. Highway 31. The defendant forced Mrs. Holley into the house at gun point and there raped her. The sordid details of this crime are unnecessary to relate. Immediately after her ravishment, Mrs. Holley was forced to accompany the defеndant a short distance from the house. She was carrying her son Dale in her arms and when she refused to put the child down when so ordered by defendant, he fired a pistol toward them, the bullet striking both. Mrs. Holley fell to the ground, dropping the decеased. The defendant fired two more times into the head of the deceased, killing him as he lay on the ground. There were three bullet holes in the skull. Defendant then turned his gun on Mrs. Holley, firing two more shots into her body, and when it appeared that he had not killed her, he struck her in the head with a rock. He then took the rock and dipped it in water, brushed out his foоtprints with the gun, and left the scene. He was subsequently captured after an intensive manhunt.
The defendant admitted on the stаnd that he was present at the time and place described by Mrs. Holley and that he did fire the shots at her, but denied shooting the child. His testimony in defense *207 of the crime was so incredible that we will not burden the opinion with its recital. It is enough to sаy that the evidence overwhelmingly sustained the verdict of guilty and the'trial court correctly ruled in denying the motion for a new trial.
An oral confession was made by defendant to W. L. Allen, a criminal investigator for the State of Alabama, whilе defendant was in the hospital recovering from wounds received when being captured. The State laid the proper predicate and the defendant on voir dire was permitted further inquiry into the question of the voluntary charactеr of the confession. It clearly appears from all the evidence that the confession was proven to have been voluntary and the trial court ruled correctly in admitting it.
On cross-examination of Allen on
voir dire,
defendant’s counsel asked several questions concerning communications between Allen and defendant’s wife with reference to someone breaking intо the defendant’s house. The exact materiality of this line of questioning is not made to appear and we are persuaded that the trial court, in the exercise of a wise discretion vested in him with reference to the extent of cross-examination, committed no error in limiting the defendant in this particular. Kervin v. State,
After Allen testified with respеct to the confession, the solicitor asked if the defendant told him anything else, evidently pursuing the inquiry with respect to thе confession. The irrelevant response by the witness that the defendant said he had served a term in the federal penitentiary was immediately excluded by the court, the court stating: “I will exclude that. This has got nothing to do with the facts in this case.” Counsel for defendant moved for a mistrial, but this motion was overruled. Much stress is laid on this ruling as error to reverse, but we hаve concluded, after a consideration of all the facts, that the prompt ruling of the court in peremptorily and explicitly excluding the statement of the witness fully eradicated whatever prejudice might have attendеd its making. Stephens v. State,
Rosa Lee Williams testified she was at the home of defendant’s sister on the afternoon of the day in question and defendant told her that he had killed а man and wanted to hide his pistol. This evidence was in the nature of a confession— an inculpatory statement or admission and, of course, such statements made by a defendant, which directly relate to the fact or circumstances of the crime and his participation therein, are subject to the same rules of admissibility as direct confessions; that is, they are prima facie involuntary and inadmissible. McGuire v. State,
It is insisted by counsel for defendant that the evidence which showed the defendant had committed anоther crime (rape of Mrs. Holley) independent of the one charged in the indictment was inadmissible. The contention is unsustainable. The acts of the defendant, though criminal in character, were part of the series of events immеdiately preceding and leading up to the homicide and were admissible as part of the
res gestae.
The fact that such evidence proved the defendant guilty of another crime too did not render it incompetent. Grant v. State,
*208 Consistent with our duty in such cases, we have carefully examined the record for error prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant, but have discovered none. The trial court was careful to see that the defendant received a fair trial and all of his rights were carefully safeguarded.
Affirmed.