Title: Bosarge v. State

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

139 So. 2d 302 (1961)
Edward Sharpe BOSARGE
v.
STATE of Alabama.
1 Div. 903.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
September 28, 1961.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1962.
*303 Edmund R. Cannon, Jr., and Alton R. Brown, Jr., Mobile, for appellant.
*304 MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Robt. M. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
GOODWYN, Justice.
Appellant, Edward Sharpe Bosarge, was convicted in the Mobile County circuit court of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death by electrocution. The indictment charged that he, "unlawfully and with malice aforethought, killed Dorothy Grace Cash by striking her with a hammer, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama." He entered pleas of "not guilty" and "not guilty by reason of insanity." His appeal here is under the provisions of the automatic appeal statute. Act No. 249, appvd. June 24, 1943, Gen.Acts 1943, p. 217. See 1955 Cum.Pocket Part, Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 382(1) et seq.
Being mindful of our duty in cases of this kind, we have carefully considered all of the testimony, even though no lawful objection or exception was made thereto, and find none seriously prejudicial to the rights of appellant; nor can we say, after considering all of the testimony, that the verdict is so decidedly contrary to the great weight of the evidence as to be wrong and unjust. Act No. 249, supra. The verdict is amply supported by the evidence. In fact, appellant voluntarily testified in his own behalf and admitted killing the deceased with a hammer after she refused his sexual advances and slapped him; that he lost his senses, did not realize what he was doing, and did not intend to kill her. Under the evidence, the issues as to appellant's guilt and competency were clearly for the jury's determination. The trial court fully expounded the applicable law in its oral charge to the jury, to which no exceptions were taken.
Two members of the Mobile County Bar were appointed by the trial court to defend appellant. The same attorneys appear in his behalf on this appeal. Although, in appellant's brief, reversible errors are charged and argued, we find no merit in any of them. Nor do we find any other ground for reversal. However, the several grounds relied on by appellant merit discussion.
Error is charged in the denial of appellant's motion for a continuance and for a new venire, because of the alleged prejudicial nature of a newspaper article appearing in the April 24, 1960 Sunday edition of The Mobile Press Register. This article recited that the case was set for trial the following Wednesday; that appellant "had been paroled in August from Mississippi's Parchman Prison, where he served 14 years for manslaughter in a prior hammer slaying in Ocean Springs, Miss."; that "in that case, he was convicted of the bludgeoning of a young woman whose body was found in a hotel in the Mississippi Coast Town"; that "while at prison, an additional eight years was added to the 20-year term for a hammer attack on a prison official's wife." Also included in the article was a list of the veniremen summoned for duty as jurors during the week the case was set for trial.
The motion was based on the premise that, because of the article, appellant could not receive a fair and impartial trial at the time set for the reason that "the printing of the names of the jurors in the same article in which there appeared an account of the prior convictions of defendant unduly calls to the attention of the very jurors that are to hear the case the fact of such prior convictions, and has the further effect of singling out and giving undue emphasis of such prior convictions to such jurors."
Appellant offered only the newspaper article in support of his motion. However, the trial court, in qualifying the jurors, asked whether any of them had read the newspaper article. Fourteen answered in the affirmative. The court then directed to them the following inquiry:
Each separately answered, in effect, that the article would have no influence on him and that, if selected as a juror, he would consider only the evidence presented.
There is an established principle that the matter of continuance in a criminal case is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and that the exercise of such discretion will not be disturbed unless clearly abused. Goldin v. State, 271 Ala. 678, 680, 127 So. 2d 375; Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 75, 122 So. 2d 360; Cook v. State, 269 Ala. 646, 655, 115 So. 2d 101; Walker v. State, 265 Ala. 233, 235-236, 90 So. 2d 221; Logan v. State, 251 Ala. 441, 443, 37 So. 2d 753; Riley v. State, 209 Ala. 505, 509, 96 So. 599.
In Goldin v. State, supra [271 Ala. 678, 127 So. 2d 377], it is said:
The trial court was not convinced, nor are we, that appellant could not have had a fair trial because the newspaper article was read by some of the veniremen summoned for service as jurors in this case. It is our view that appellant has failed to show such an abuse of discretion as would warrant reversal for not continuing the case. Also, it is our view that even if there was error in refusing a continuance, such error was cured when defendant voluntarily took the stand as a witness in his own behalf and testified as to his prior convictions.
It is insisted that reversible error was committed in refusing to give appellant's requested written charge No. 31, viz.:
This charge was approved in Davis v. State, 214 Ala. 273, 276, 107 So. 737. However, if appropriate in the case before us, it was not error to refuse it because the same principle was substantially covered by the court's oral charge. Code 1940, Tit. 7, § 273; Morris v. State, 268 Ala. 60, 67, 104 So. 2d 810; Walker v. State, 265 Ala. 233, 236, 90 So. 2d 221, supra. Also, the charge concludes to an acquittal without hypothesizing that result upon due consideration by the jury of all the evidence on the issue of guilt vel non. Even if otherwise correct, it was properly refused on that ground. Lee v. State, 265 Ala. 623, 629-630, 93 So. 2d 757; Coats v. State, 253 Ala. 290, 296, 45 So. 2d 35; Campbell v. State, 182 Ala. 18, 33, 62 So. 57.
Insistence is made that a proper predicate was not laid before admitting evidence of an oral confession made by appellant.
Chief Deputy Blake testified as follows:
Appellant argues, first, that Deputy Blake's testimony shows that someone other than he and Deputy Dees was in the room when the oral confession was made; that there was no proof that someone other than the witness and Deputy Dees did not make some threat or hold out some inducement to appellant to make the confession. Evidently, the trial court concluded from Deputy Blake's testimony, and we think properly so, that only Blake and Dees were in the room with appellant. Secondly, it is argued that the testimony of Deputy Blake does not show that Deputy Dees, who was in the room with appellant, did not offer appellant a reward or inducement to make the confession. We are unable to agree with this insistence. It is to be noted that the question was first asked of Deputy Blake whether he or Deputy Dees threatened appellant in any way. Although the following questions did not continue to refer specifically to both Deputy Blake and Deputy Dees, the clear import of the other questions asked was that they applied to both of them.
It is to be noted, too, that appellant, on his direct examination, testified that only Blake and Dees talked to him on the occasion when he made the oral statement. Of some significance, also, is the fact that there is no indication whatever in appellant's testimony that he made the statement other than freely and voluntarily.
As already noted, appellant was a witness in his own behalf. The following is from his direct examination, viz.:
On his cross-examination the following occurred, viz.:
Appellant insists that reversible error was committed in so cross-examining him because of: (a) The emphasis on the sameness of the crimes; (b) the eliciting of details of the crimes; (c) the failure to prove the former convictions by court records; (d) failure of the trial court to instruct the jury how evidence of the former convictions should be considered; and (e) the admission of a diagram which was "not clear and understandable to the witnesses interrogated with reference to it." Our conclusion is that none of these grounds constitutes reversible error.
(a) and (b). In 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 401 P. 186, the rule for cross-examining an accused is stated as follows:
Since appellant had already testified on his direct examination with respect to the former convictions, we see no prejudicial error in permitting his cross-examination concerning such convictions. The cross-examination brought out nothing more of substance than had already been testified to by appellant. Indeed, the former convictions were injected into the case by appellant himself, thus opening the way to a cross-examination with respect thereto. Also, it is an established principle that the extent of cross-examination is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, not reviewable except for abuse. Burgess v. State, 256 Ala. 5, 11, 53 So. 2d 568; Davis v. State, 240 Ala. 365, 367, 199 So. 547; Pynes v. State, 207 Ala. 413, 415, 92 So. 666. Under the circumstances of this case we see no abuse of discretion in the cross-examination of appellant.
(c). Since appellant testified to his prior convictions on his direct examination there was no necessity for the State on cross-examination to prove such convictions by a certified copy of the records of the courts showing them, under the best evidence *309 rule. As said in Harbin v. State, 210 Ala. 667, 668, 99 So. 100, 101:
(d). Undoubtedly, appellant's convictions were brought out by him to support his plea of insanity. And the trial court, in its oral charge, fully dealt with that plea. Appellant must have been satisfied with the trial court's oral instructions to the jury because he took no exception thereto; nor did he request any written charge stating to what extent consideration should be given to the evidence of appellant's former convictions. We see no reversible error in the failure of the trial court, under the circumstances of this case, to specifically charge the jury as to what bearing appellant's former convictions should have on the case.
(e). The State offered in evidence a diagram consisting of streets and various objects and buildings marked thereon. This diagram was referred to by some of the witnesses in the course of their testimony. We find no error in admitting it into evidence. Hardie v. State, 260 Ala. 75, 79, 68 So. 2d 35; Jones v. State, 181 Ala. 63, 77, 61 So. 434; Noel v. State, 161 Ala. 25, 31, 32, 49 So. 824; Burton v. State, 115 Ala. 1, 9, 22 So. 585.
As stated in Jones v. State, supra [181 Ala. 63, 61 So. 439]:
In Burton v. State, supra [115 Ala. 1, 22 So. 588], it was said:
Finding no error to reverse, the judgment of conviction is due to be affirmed.
Affirmed.
All the Justices concur.