Court Opinion

ID: 9681910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:01:10.509359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.611505
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
COLEMAN, Justice.
The state applies for rehearing and insists that we erred in holding that the trial court was in error in admitting, without proper predicate, testimony that defendant’s witness, Coon, had made, out of court and outside the presence of defendant, two statements which contradict the testimony given by Coon on defendant’s trial.
The state asserts that evidence of the joint participation of defendant and Coon in commission of the crime rendered admissible, in rebuttal of Coon’s testimony that defendant was not a willing participant in the crime, the testimony of Smith and Dearman that Coon had made prior inconsistent statements.
The state misconceives the rule. In support of its argument, the state cites Helms v. State, 40 Ala.App. 622, 121 So.2d 104. In Helms, the court held that where the evidence showed that defendant and one Sanders forced the witness, at gun point, to give defendant and Sanders the money from a service station cash register, the court did not err in permitting the witness to testify that Sanders took the witness into the hallway and, while defendant was *381not shown to have been present, Sanders told the witness to lie down and asked if the witness wanted him, Sanders, to shoot the witness. In support of the holding, the Court of Appeals cited West v. State, 168 Ala. 1, 53 So. 277, where this court said:
“ . . . The principle of law to be stated is that, where a conspiracy is established, any act or declaration of a conspirator made or done in furtherance of the common design is admissible in evidence against a co-conspirator, although not made or done in the presence of such co-conspirator. . . . ” (168 Ala. at page 4, 53 So. at page 278.)
The Court of Appeals cited also Lockett v. State, 218 Ala. 40, 117 So. 457, where this court said:
“The evidence of joint participation in the common criminal enterprise was evidence of conspiracy between Mays and Lockett rendering admissible against Lockett the doings of Mays in furtherance or in perpetration of the crime. . . . ” (218 Ala. at page 43, 117 So. at page 458.)
The general rule is correctly stated in West, supra. Evidence showing the act or declaration of one conspirator is admissible against the other conspirator when done or made “in furtherance of the common design.”
“The general rule is familiar, that where several parties conspire or combine together to commit any unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his associates or confederates committed in furtherance or in prosecution of the common design for which they combine.” Williams v. State, 81 Ala. 1, 4, 1 So. 179, 182.
The reason for the rule has been stated as follows:
“Acts and declarations of conspirators who are not on trial are sometimes admitted in evidence against a co-conspirator who is being prosecuted. The principle upon which such acts and declarations are admitted in evidence is that by the act of conspiring together the parties doing so have generally assumed as a body the attribute of individuality as relates to the prosecution of the common design or purpose, and that what is done or said by any one in furtherance of that design is a part of the res gestae, and therefore the act of all. They are also admissible on the ground of agency. ...” State v. Moeller, 20 N.D. 114, 120, 126 N.W. 568, 571.
In a case where defendants were charged with conspiracy to burn a steamer, the court said:
“The common design is the essence of the charge; and this may be made to appear, when the defendants steadily pursue the same object, whether acting separately or together, by common or different means, all leading to the same unlawful result. And where prima facie evidence has been given of a combination, the acts or confessions of one are evidence against all. This rule of evidence is founded upon principles which apply to agencies and partnerships. And it is reasonable that where a body of men assume the attribute of individuality, whether for commercial business or the commission of a crime, that the association should be bound by the acts of one of its members, in carrying out the design.” United States v. Cole, 25 Fed.Cas. p. 493, No. 14,832, 5 McLean, 513.
That rule does not, however, make evidence showing the declaration of one confederate admissible against the other when the declaration was not made until after the purposes of the unlawful combination had been accomplished.
This court has said:
“. . . Confessions of one defendant, made apart from the other, are not evidence against that other. . .” Gore v. State, 58 Ala. 391, 392.
*382. , Manifestly the effect and operation of this evidence should have been limited to the defendant who made the statements deposed to, as they were not made in the prosecution of the objects of the conspiracy alleged, but after such conspiracy had been carried out, and the purposes of the unlawful combination had been accomplished, and none of the other alleged conspirators were present when they were made. The court erred in declining to so, limit .the effect of this evidence.” Everage v. State, 113 Ala. 102, 103, 21 So. 404.
“The appellant was indicted and convicted of robbery. On the trial one James Bowling, who had pleaded guilty and was not on trial at the time, was examined as a witness for the state. The evidence of this witness tended to show the guilt of the defendants, and that he was an accomplice in the commission of the offense. Against the objection of the defendants, the solicitor was permitted to prove a conversation between him and the witness, had in the absence of the defendants and without their knowledge. This was purely hearsay evidence, and its admission clearly erroneous and detrimental to defendants.” James v. State, 115 Ala. 83, 85, 22 So. 565, 566.
“It is a well-recognized rule that the incriminating acts or statements of one confederate after the ends of the conspiracy have been accomplished, and no longer exist, are not admissible against another in his absence and without his knowledge and consent.” Dailey v. State, 233 Ala. 384, 387, 171 So. 729, 731.
“. . . The subsequent statements to the same effect by Teal (not a part of the res gestae of the crime) uttered without the presence and hearing of defendant were not competent evidence against the other codefendants. . . .” Clark v. State, 240 Ala. 65, 69, 197 So. 23, 27.
In this connection observe Delaney v. State, 204 Ala. 685, 87 So. 183; Morris v. State, 25 Ala.App. 494, 149 So. 359; Douglas v. State, 42 Ala.App. 314, 163 So. 2d 477.
The Court of Appeals has said:
“Therefore the acts and declarations of McArdle long after the consummation of the common purpose, not iri the presence or hearing of defendant, and with which defendant, is not shown to have been connected, should not have been admitted in evidence; they not being a part of the res gestae. . . .” Leverett v. State, 18 Ala.App. 578, 581, 93 So. 347, 350.
“. . . But statements of such co-conspirator made after the termination of the conspiracy are not admissible, unless so clearly related to the commission of the offense as to be a part of the res gestae or unless made in the presence of the defendant and undenied by him, in which latter case they become admissible under the rule of tacit admissions. (Citations Omitted.)” Connelly v. State, 30 Ala.App. 91, 93, 1 So.2d 606, 607; Macon v. State, 30 Ala.App. 276, 279, 4 So.2d 439.
In the instant case, the second and third statements attributed to Coon were not made in furtherance of the common design. The statements were made by Coon, when defendant was not present, several days after the crime had been accomplished and after all four of the participants in the crime had been taken into custody. Because Coon did not make the statements until after the completion and termination of the common enterprise, the statements were not admissible against the instant defendant under the rule which allows the statement of one confederate to be shown in evidence against another confederate who was not present when the statement was made.
, On original deliverance, we held that .the second and third statements made by Coon were not admissible to impeach Coon because the state had not laid a proper *383predicate during the examination of Coon. We think our holding is correct under Bridges v. State, supra, and other authorities cited in the original opinion.
Opinion extended.
Application overruled.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.