Court Opinion

ID: 9658958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:23:40.282059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:02.214172
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
PRICE, Judge.
In brief on application for rehearing appellant’s counsel complains that we failed to consider in the original opinion what is termed his assignments of error 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14 and 15. We proceed to a discussion of the matters urged in the application for rehearing.
Assignment number 4.
The solicitor offered in evidence a diagram showing the location of the streets and houses in the vicinity of the Blackwell home. He informed the court the drawing was made by C. L. Stevens, a member of the police department, who was temporarily unavailable as a witness; that there was no contention on the part of the state that the diagram was drawn to scale', but the distances shown were actual distances measured by Mr. Stevens, who would be called as a witness to identify the drawing when he came into court. The court permitted the introduction of the diagram subject to its being properly identified at a later time. The witness Rosenfeld was shown the diagram, and he testified that it correctly portrayed the general location of the houses in the neighborhood. The following occurred:
“Mr. Watson: May I say also, Judge, that the writing on this is upside down, with reference to the north,
*35WILCUTT v. STATE Cite as 41 Ala.App. 25
south, east, west points of the compass. The writing on it is upside down. It is upside down insofar as we ordinarily look at it.
“The Court: You mean if — the north is at the bottom of the picture?
“Mr. Watson: No sir, North according to the diagram is accurately — this (indicating) is north, but, where he has labeled the streets, he has labeled that upside down. His writing is on that wrong. It is upside down.
“Mr. Rogers: We object to that explanation made in the presence and hearing of the jury, and we move to exclude it.
“The Court: With the same reservations, I overrule the objection.”
The drawing is before us as state’s Exhibit KN. We are of opinion that the court did not abuse its discretion in overruling the objection nor in refusing to exclude the explanatory statements made by the solicitor.
Assignment number 7.
T. E. Lindsey testified on cross-examination that to his knowledge no warrant was issued for defendant’s arrest up until the day of the preliminary hearing. This question was asked the witness:
“Q. And, at that time, had you discussed with anybody, the Solicitor, Mr. Watson, Mr. Perry, Mr. Bull Connor, or anybody in your office, your Chief-of-Police, Mr. Jamie Moore, or your partner, Mr. Hart, about getting a warrant in the Blackwell case?”
The state’s objection was sustained to this question.
Assignment number 14.
The court sustained the state’s objection to this question:
“Q. Now, then, on July 30, when you got this warrant down there, did you get it of your own volition ?”
Assignment number IS.
Objection was sustained to this question asked the witness Hart.
“Q. If you felt that this defendant had any connection with the Blackwell house it would have been your duty as an officer to have gotten a warrant for him at the same time you got the other warrant, wouldn’t it?”
The court’s ruling was proper in each' instance. The defendant was charged by indictment. Any evidence concerning the issuance of a warrant was immaterial and irrelevant and tended to shed no light on any issue in the case.
Assignments number 8 and 9.
The state’s witness Vernon T. Hart was questioned by the defendant on voir dire examination as to the alleged confession of the defendant.
These questions were asked:
“Q. Everything said there wasn’t written down was it?
“Q. And the things — do you remember the things that were said there • that were left out of the written statement ?”
The court properly sustained objection to each of said questions. The sole inquiry then before the court was whether the, confession was free and voluntary.. See Ala. Dig., Criminal Law, @^53,2 for numerous citations of authority.
Assignment number 13, relates to the court’s sustaining of the state’s objection to this question propounded to the witness Hart:
“Q. Well, he was, on that same day, placed under the lie detector twice on the Blackwell case, wasn’t he?”
The fact of the .taking of lie detector tests and the results of such tests are not admissible as evidence. In Jones on Evidence, Sec. 436 p. 829 it is said:
*36“Truth tests by lie detectors, truth serum, hypnosis and the like are very generally rejected by the courts, usually on the ground that there is no general scientific recognition of their efficacy.”
See also the cases cited in the Annotation to the case of Henderson v. State, Okl., 230 P.2d 495, 23 A.L.R.2d p. 1308 Sec. 2.
Application overruled.