Appellant was tried and convicted in the Circuit Court of Hale County, Alabama, for the оffense of murder in the first degree and his punishment fixed by the jury at death. Appeal to this cоurt is by virtue of the Automatic Appeal Statute. General Acts of Alabama 1943, p. 217, Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 382(1) et scq.
The evidence disclosed by the record shows that this appellant killed deceased, Fanny Webster, by striking her with an ax, on the date of March 24, 1944. The motive was robbеry. The corpus delicti was shown by clear and convincing evidence and defendant confessed the crime while under arrest to the sheriff, in the presence of a third рarty, not an official.
A nonexpert witness should not be permitted to testify as to his oрinion, but should confine his testimony to a statement of the facts. To qualify as an expеrt witness, it must appear that by study, practice, experience or observation, as to the particular subject matter the witness has acquired a knowledge beyоnd that of ordinary witnesses. Daniel v. State,
The nature of a wound or injury, its probable cause and effect can be stated by expert medical witnesses, or witnesses shown tо be familiar with such questions; such as, an undertaker, or others showing competency. Whеther a witness is shown to possess the requisite qualifications is a preliminary question said to be largely within the discretion of the court. Kitchens v. State,
The above authorities are controlling on the question of whеther or not the registered nurse, Mrs. Robert Clements, under the predicate laid for her testimony and her statement of the facts, possessed the requisite qualifications to give an opinion as to fatality of the wounds upon the body of the deceased. Thе trial court committed no error in admitting her evidence.
The clothing of the deceased, as well as that of the accused, are usually admissible on trials of a defеndant for homicide, if such objects tend to corroborate or disprove, illustrate or elucidate any other evidence, although such evidence may have a tendency to bias and prejudice a jury. Floyd v. State,
In a prosecution for murder it is not error to allow a state witness to testify as to defendant’s admission of ownership of shoes found in defendant’s home, and as to their correspondence w;fih the meаsures of tracks leading from deceased’s house, where such evidence had bеen given and such witness had testified that he had measured defendant’s shoes and the tracks, and that they “matched.” Blackmon v. State, Ala. Sup.,
Facts and circumstances tending prima facie to prove corpus delicti may be aided by admissions or confessions of accused duly admitted as evidence, so as to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt
*442
of the accused’s guilt. Rowe v. State,
It is settled law in this jurisdiction that, it is the duty of the trial court to determine whethеr the confession of a defendant is voluntary, and only an abuse of that discretion wid justify а reversal by the reviewing court. Stone v. State,
The exclusion from the jury of a confеssion rests on its connection with the inducement. If promises or threats do not have the influence to induce the confession, the confession must be referred to other motives within the law. Beckham v. State,
The objection to the argumеnt of the solicitor was within the evidence or a reasonable inference thereof, and was without error.
We find no error in the record and the judgement of the cirсuit court is affirmed.
The foregoing opinion was prepared by Mr. Justice THOMAS, now decеased, and upon consideration of the cause is adopted as the opinion of the court. Accordingly the decree of the lower court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Notes