Summary
In Summerville v. State, 207 Miss. 54, 41 So.2d 377 (1949), we held the discretion exercised by a trial judge is reviewable on appeal but that reversal will not follow unless the judicial discretion has been manifestly abused and the defendant thereby deprived of a fair trial.
Summary of this case from Williams v. StateOpinion
No. 37215.
June 13, 1949.
1. Criminal procedure — trial — opening case to prove essential fact.
When in a prosecution for statutory rape it was realized by the prosecution after both sides had rested, that by oversight proof had not been made that the victim was unmarried, it was within the discretion of the trial judge to permit the case to be reopened to prove that fact, especially when throughout the trial the defendant had made no suggestion to the contrary, and made no offer to controvert the fact on the reopening.
2. Criminal procedure — trial — leading question when permissible.
Under the rule that the allowance of leading question is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, it was not an abuse of such discretion during the prosecution of a charge of statutory rape, to permit leading questions directed to the prosecuting witness as to the essential details of the crime when the witness was a sixteen year old girl and who displayed extreme embarrassment as to such details and was hesitant to give them in the presence of a court room audience, especially when upon such questions being allowed and propounded her answers, although hesitant, were apparently frank and truthful and when accused had himself confessed to the details as to which the prosecuting witness was interrogated by the leading question.
3. Criminal procedure — trial — confessions — accused struck by sheriff but not in connection with confession.
When the accused was apprehended late at night, the sheriff took him aside and as they stopped, the accused made a move which the sheriff thought was an attempt to draw a weapon whereupon the sheriff struck him but upon ascertaining that the accused had no weapon, the sheriff assured accused that he would not be further harmed, and soon thereafter without any intimation or suggestion of reward, or punishment, immunity or inducement the accused made to the sheriff in the hearing of a deputy a confession of all the details of the crime: Held that the blow by the sheriff, being to the knowledge of the accused a wholly disconnected event, would not serve to exclude the confession.
4. Criminal procedure — confession — made while denying another crime.
While in jail charged with rape the sheriff informed accused that it was also charged that he had robbed his victim and the accused immediately denied it but stated at the same time that he committed the rape. There was no suggestion that the statement so made was not entirely voluntary. The court instructed the jury that they should not consider any statement by anyone about the robbery: Held that no error was committed in admitting the statement.
5. Criminal procedure — confessions — preliminary hearing.
The competency of a confession should be ascertained preliminary to its introduction before the jury, and the accused has the right to take the witness stand during such preliminary hearing and limit his testimony to fact bearing upon whether the confession was free and voluntary.
6. Criminal procedure — confessions — preliminary hearing.
It would be reversible error if the trial judge, on the preliminary hearing into the admissibility of a confession, made it a condition that if the accused took the witness stand on that hearing he must testify as to the entire facts and circumstances of the merits of the case; but where the record shows not only that no such condition was imposed but further that accused, upon being informed of his rights free of any such condition, declined to take the stand on the preliminary hearing at all, no ground for complaint is presented.
Headnotes as approved by Roberds, J.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Carroll County; J.P. COLEMAN, Judge.
Bell McBee, for appellant.
While we recognize the rule that in certain cases there are exceptions to the rule that leading questions should not be permitted, yet these exceptions are well defined and do not fit the witness or the circumstances in this case. In a splendid discussion of the right to lead a witness by suggestive questions, the court in Turney v. State, 8 Smedes Marshall's Reports 104, et seq. the exceptions to the general rule, that leading questions are not permitted, are stated.
In Section 570 under Chapter on Witnesses in 58 Am. Jur. page 318, the discretion of the court to allow leading questions is discussed. The same rule as announced in the Turney v. State case, supra, was stated; that is, discretion is given the trial judge to permit such questions if the reasons are within the exceptions stated in the Turney case. In Section 571 following, it was stated: "So far is the matter of the examination of witnesses considered within the discretion of the court that the allowance of leading questions has by some courts been held not the subject of error. Clearly an appellate court will not reverse a case on the ground of the asking of leading questions, when the legal discretion vested in the trial judge in this regard was not abused, but the general rule appears to be that if an established rule of law has been violated and leading questions permitted in a case which did not justify them the appellate court will grant a new trial where injury results." See also Sec. 571, Chap. Witnesses, 58 Am. Jur. 319, and Coon v. People, 99 Ill. 368, 39 Am. Rep. 28.
The alleged confession of the defendant should not have been admitted because it was not free and voluntary. The court, of course, cannot determine whether the confession of the defendant is freely and voluntarily made unless it hears the person receiving the confession and the confessor. The court should determine this proposition before the jury hears the confession.
In the case of Draughn v. State, 76 Miss. 574, 25 So. 153, it is stated: "That the court before admitting the confession to the jury should have examined and known that it was free and voluntary, is held by Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 47, 3 So. 188."
We believe that the court should have permitted the defendant to take the stand to testify about the confession and to limit the cross-examination to this proposition. Without both sides, it was impossible for the court to determine whether the confession was freely given.
In Hawkins v. State, 193 Miss. 586, 10 So.2d 678, a similar situation is reported. Here the jury was retired and the confession heard by the court. The defendant took the stand to tell why he made the confession and the district attorney questioned him at length about the facts of the crime charged. The defendant's attorney did not object. When the jury returned, the court over the objection of the defendant's counsel permitted the district attorney to have the court reporter read the testimony to the jury that was given by the defendant on the facts of the crime charged. The appellant did not testify on the merits. To this procedure, this court said: "The Attorney General very properly confesses that this procedure was erroneous for which the judgment of the court below must be reversed. One sufficient reason therefor is that the evidence on the preliminary inquiry into the competency vel non of appellant's confession should have been limited thereto. The appellant had the right to testify thereon but did not thereby subject himself to examination by the state on the question of his guilt vel non of the crime with which he is charged."
The court should have sustained the motion of the defendant for an exclusion of the evidence and a direction of a verdict of not guilty at the conclusion of the state's evidence.
When this motion was made, there was no testimony that the prosecutrix was an unmarried person. This is one of the essential elements of the crime stated in Section 2359 of the 1942 Code. Here the state had an opportunity to reopen its case to make that proof. No such effort was made by the state's attorney and without that essential proof, the conviction of the defendant could not stand. It is true that the state could have made that proof; and it did do so after the case had been rested by both sides; yet the state did refuse to make this proof after the motion to exclude was presented and having elected to stand on the testimony as it then appeared in the record, it was the duty of the court to sustain the motion. We realize that it was a matter that could be supplied by reopening the case; yet the state declined to do this after the motion had been made. If no further testimony had been offered, and the case then permitted to go to the jury, the verdict would have to be set aside.
The first ground of the motion is based on Section 2360. If the confession was not properly given, and we believe it was not, then there was no testimony to corroborate the prosecutrix. She made no outcry; she did not tell her escort when she returned to the place where he got out and turned her over to the appellant; and without the alleged confession, which we think is incompetent, there was no corroborative testimony.
The only testimony about the age of the defendant is on page 92 of the testimony. The witness King who was deputy sheriff said that the defendant in the presence of Sheriff Tyler said he was 18. This statement is part of the confession to the sheriff, which began at the filling station and continued at the jail. It was incompetent to begin with and remained incompetent as long as the sheriff was present. He was the man who slapped the defendant.
We are of the opinion that the court erred fatally in the following respects: 1. Voluntarily instructing the district attorney to ask leading question to the prosecutrix on vital issues of the charge. 2. In refusing defendant opportunity to give testimony rebutting the sheriff's account of the confession without being subject to examination on all matters affecting the charge. 3. In overruling the motion for directed verdict on exclusion of state's testimony for reasons that material elements of crime had not been proved, and state did not offer to reopen at that time; the testimony of the prosecutrix was not sufficient to sustain a conviction in that she contradicted herself on the most vital matter at issue; and the corpus delicti was not properly proved without the alleged confession of the defendant. 4. The state should not have been permitted to reopen the case after both sides rested for the reason that the state had an opportunity to make the proof omitted when the motion of defendant to exclude the testimony was presented.
George H. Ethridge, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
When the young lady was on the stand as a witness it became necessary, under the law, for the state to prove the consummation of the purpose of the appellant and witness being a young lady of sixteen years of age and disinclined to go into the details of the assault made necessary in the prosecution and the judge then stated to the district attorney that on this account he would permit the district attorney to ask leading questions which the district attorney did, developing the necessary details from this witness who was the only witness for the prosecution present at the time of the rape. I see no error in this as it is necessarily or at least usually very embarrassing for a young lady of that age to answer such questions as were necessarily asked concerning what was actually done at the time of the rape. Certainly it is in the discretion of the court in the interest of clearness and justice to permit leading questions of a youthful and inexperienced girl in a court room filled with adult people, the judge, district attorney, officers and the jury and it would be especially harmless in the absence of testimony by the defendant as to what occurred and what was said and done at the time the crime was committed.
Counsel also comments upon the fact that Miss Carpenter when she returned to where her date and companion of the appellant were made no outcry; it being the law that in such cases if no outcry was made at the first reasonable opportunity that that would be considered as evidence that the crime had not been committed or had been consented to. Both Miss Carpenter and Henderson explained this reasonably by saying appellant claimed to have a pistol and commanded them not to talk to each other or make complaint to Lott as to what had happened until they got to the service station as above stated. Anyway, it was a question for the court and the jury to consider as to whether there was a disclosure of what had happened at the first reasonable opportunity. Taking into consideration the fact that neither Miss Carpenter nor Henderson knew the appellant or his companion and that they were out on a lonely road in the dead hours of the night, it would make their action a reasonable course of conduct. The fact that Henderson grabbed the keys from the car, got out of the car at the service station and asked the attendant there to call the police shows that they were making outcry and relating the occurrence as soon as was reasonably safe.
As to the complaint about the confessions made to the sheriff and his deputy being reasonable and admissible, I think a careful reading of the record pages will show that the court had offered to permit the appellant to testify on the admissibility of the confession as to whether it was voluntary or not and that the defendant declined to take the stand for that purpose at that time. It may be that the district attorney and the trial judge thought that if he took the stand on the admissibility of the testimony in the absence of the jury that the district attorney could question him as to the whole matter of the facts in the case. It does not appear to me that the trial judge was of that opinion. His statement is not entirely clear as to whether he would permit the defendant to testify on the admissibility of the confession in the absence of the jury and not be compelled to testify on the merits of the case. It is my opinion that the statement of the district attorney indicated that the district attorney proposed to cross examine the appellant and to offer evidence before the jury of what appellant said on the question of admissibility. If the court had specifically ruled that the defendant would be subject to cross-examination by the state as to the whole case if he testified at all would have been, in my judgment, erroneous. I think the defendant had a right to testify in the absence of the jury on the admissibility of the confession and be silent on the other questions in the case if he chose to do so, but if I understand the statement of the trial judge correctly, that he would limit the examination to the admissibility of the confession, that it was for no other purpose. Defendant's counsel distinctly stated that the defendant did not desire to testify and would not take the stand. I therefore think that there is nothing to affect the ruling of the trial judge as being harmful to the appellant. It is true that counsel for appellant first stated that he wanted to cross-examine the sheriff and offer proof that the statement was not free and voluntary but that he did not want to examine further features concerned in the case on its merits.
As there was no denial by the defendant or anyone introduced by him to testify as to what occurred during the transaction involved in the crime and as he did freely state to the sheriff that he had committed the act for which he was indicted it would not warrant a reversal of the case even if the trial judge and the district attorney had an erroneous idea that the appellant, if he took the stand, could be examined on all the facts involved in the case. The presumption of law is in favor of the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge when he offered to permit the defendant's testimony on the question of voluntariness of the confession, limiting that examination to that question. Had the defendant taken the stand and testified to facts which would tend to invalidate the legality of the confession at that stage of the inquiry, and the district attorney had undertaken to develop other features of the case and did, defendant could have interposed his objection and saved the question properly for review on the motion for a new trial and on this appeal. It seems that the statement to the sheriff was made by appellant to avoid possible arrest and prosecution for the robbery of the girl by taking her money from her purse over her objection which would have been a different crime from that charged in the indictment.
Appellant was indicted for statutory rape of Miss Hazel Carpenter, an unmarried female, younger than appellant, and over twelve and under eighteen years of age. Section 2359, Code 1942. The jury convicted and sentenced him to two years in the State penitentiary.
When the State rested its case, defendant moved the court to exclude the evidence and direct the jury to acquit him. The motion was overruled. That action is now assigned and argued as error. The motion was based upon three grounds — first, that no evidence corroborating the prosecutrix had been introduced; second, that the State had failed to prove that the victim was younger than defendant; and, third, the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction.
The motion had no merit on the stated grounds. There was ample evidence in support of the testimony of Miss Carpenter, her age and that of defendant had been shown, and appellant himself had confessed he committed the necessary acts to make out the crime, which confession, as will be shown hereinafter, was properly admitted in evidence.
But on this appeal, in connection with this assignment of error, (Hn 1) it is also argued that at the stage of the trial when this motion was made, the State had not shown Miss Carpenter to be an unmarried person. It will be noted the motion does not expressly mention that ground. However, after the State and defendant had rested their cases, the court, on motion of the district attorney, permitted the case to be reopened, and the State to prove that fact. Appellant urges that action as reversible error. It is clear this was a mere oversight. No effort to controvert the fact, either by cross-examination of Miss Carpenter, or offer to introduce other witnesses on the question, was made by defendant. Permission to so controvert would no doubt have been given had the offer been made. No surprise is here involved. Appellant knew in advance this was an element of the crime necessary to be shown by the State, and could have been prepared had he wished to offer proof on that question. Such matters are largely within the discretion of the trial judge. Lee. v. State, Miss., 29 So.2d 211. There was no abuse of the discretion here.
(Hn 2) The court permitted the district attorney to ask Miss Carpenter leading questions directed to the details of the sexual act. This is urged as reversible error. That was done because the trial judge observed that Miss Carpenter was hesitant and much embarrassed to give such details in the presence of the officers, jurors and the spectators in the courtroom. It was, of course, necessary that the State show intercourse was actually committed. The trial judge made this statement descriptive of the existing conditions: "The court holds this: that this being a sixteen year old girl and naturally reluctant under the circumstances to testify, that the district attorney may ask reasonably leading questions to get at whatever may or may not be the facts of the case." Counsel for defendant stated "We interpose an objection to that for the sake of the record." The court then responded: "Let the record show that the defendant objects to this and that the objection is by the court overruled for the reason that leading questions are reasonably within the discretion of the presiding judge, and this court has sat here and listened to this witness and observed her demeanor on the witness stand and now holds that leading questions are reasonably necessary at this stage of the testimony." The district attorney then proceeded to inquire as to facts constituting essential elements of the crime, such as penetration of sexual organ of the female by such organ of the male, some of the questions being leading and some not, to which questions hesitant, but apparently frank and truthful, answers were made by the witness.
Counsel for appellant cite Turney v. State, 8 Smedes M. 104, 47 Am. Dec. 74, and argue that the circumstances in this case do not bring it within the rules announced in the Turner case permitting leading questions. There were three opinions in the Turner case. All discussed this question. We do not understand that the opinion of any judge undertook to set out all the circumstances under which leading questions might be asked. The opinions do announce the rules (1) that in some jurisdictions the discretion of the trial judge in permitting such questions is not reviewable by the appellate court, (2) that in most jurisdictions, including our own, such action is reviewable, but that (3) no reversal will result unless the discretion was manifestly abused and defendant was deprived of a fair trial. One opinion made the observation "Clearly an appellate court will not reverse a case on the ground of the asking of leading questions, when the legal discretion vested in the trial judge in this regard was not abused," and, further, "This is a matter which cannot, in many cases, be made to appear in an appellate court," and that each case must depend upon its own peculiar circumstances.
The discretion of the trial judge and the effect of its exercise are discussed in 58 Am. Jur., pages 318 and 319, Sections 570 and 571, and the Turner case is there cited. The statement is there made "To justify a reversal because of the allowance of a leading question, not only is it necessary that there should have been a manifest abuse of discretion, but it is also necessary that the question shall have influenced the answer and that injury resulted." Finally, as to the rule, this Court said in Miss. Utilities Co. v. Smith, 166 Miss. 105, 145 So. 896, 898, "Matters such as the introduction of proof, the asking of leading questions, etc., are largely within the discretion of the trial court."
It is of the greatest importance, in legal proceedings, that the truth be ascertained, yet, at the same time, that the fundamental rights of litigants be protected. Can we say the court abused its discretion under the circumstances of this case? We do not think so. In the first place, the trial court was in much better position to judge the necessity and propriety of his action than is this Court. He saw the witness and observed the delicacy of the situation. He noted her sensibility to going forward and explaining in detail the intimate acts necessary for the State to prove to make out its case. One girl of sixteen years might be much more humiliated to give the necessary intimate details essential to the crime here charged than another of the same age. Each case must depend upon its own circumstances, and the trial judge is the person best situated to decide upon the course of conduct necessary to elicit the truth and yet safeguard the rights of the accused, and unless this Court can say, from the whole record, he abused his discretion and the accused was deprived of a fair and impartial trial, we should not reverse a case because of such action. And, looking to the entire record in this case, as we weigh the question whether the accused was deprived of any fundamental legal right by this action of the court, it is noted that the appellant himself admitted, in substance, to the county officials his commission of the intimate, essential acts to which Miss Carpenter testified in response to the question of the district attorney, and he offered no evidence whatever to deny, or contradict, the facts or the confession. No error was committed in this regard by the trial court.
According to the proof of the state appellant made two incriminating statements to the sheriff and deputy sheriff of Montgomery County. Appellant urges that these statements were not admissible in evidence, first, because it is not shown they were free and voluntary and, second, because the trial court would not permit the defendant to take the stand and deny he made them.
We now decide whether the admissions were free and voluntary. (Hn 3) The first statement was made at Herring Motor Company Service Station in Winona about three o'clock in the morning of the night the crime was committed. As a preliminary to an understanding of this statement it is necessary to say that the rape took place some five or six miles west of Winona. The proof discloses that appellant had commanded James Henderson, the escort of Miss Carpenter, and Horace Lott, associate of appellant, on this night, to get out of the automobile in which the four were riding and which was being driven by appellant, but which belonged to Henderson. Henderson and Lott obeyed and got out. He made Miss Carpenter remain in the car. He then drove some two miles, stopped and accomplished his purpose over the resistance of Miss Carpenter. He returned and picked up Henderson and Lott. Henderson, under the pretense the car was about out of gas, suggested they drive to Winona to get gasoline. That was done. They stopped at Herring's Service Station. While gas was being put in the car Henderson succeeded in removing the switch key from the car and he and Miss Carpenter jumped out and ran to and entered a near-by automobile which had just driven up. After a struggle, in which appellant undertook, but failed, to drag Henderson from that car, it drove to the Texaco Station in Winona, from which Henderson called the sheriff by telephone. The sheriff, Dewitt Tyler, and his deputy, Lawrence King, immediately came to the station from which Henderson had called. Miss Carpenter informed the sheriff what had happened, in which she was supported by Henderson so far as he knew the facts. The sheriff and his deputy went to Herring's station, at which place appellant and his friend Lott were left when Henderson and Miss Carpenter got into the stranger's automobile. The officers did not then find appellant and Lott. They had disappeared into the open territory to the rear of the gas station. However, in a short time they showed up at the station. Here appellant stated to the sheriff that he, upon stopping the automobile some two miles from where he had put Henderson and Lott out, commanded Miss Carpenter to remove all of her clothing and get onto the back seat of the car, which she did; that he then attempted to have sexual relations with her, and that she picked up from the front seat of the car a flashlight and struck him with it; but that, in spite of this resistance, he succeeded in accomplishing his purpose after considerable difficulty, due, as he thought, to the fact that she had never indulged such relation before. Objection was made to this statement, or admission, of appellant on the ground it was not shown to be free and voluntary. On that question the sheriff testified that when appellant finally again appeared at Herring's station he, the sheriff, carried appellant some fifteen steps to one side to talk with him; that when they stopped appellant reached to his pocket as though to draw a weapon, and the sheriff, apprehending he might do that, slapped him on the face with his open hand, and admonished him against such an attempt. He told appellant why he had slapped him and told him not to repeat the effort, else he would slap him again. He did this, the sheriff said, as a normal precaution for his own protection, and he explained to appellant it would not be done again unless appellant made another such attempt. The sheriff was careful to tell appellant that appellant's conduct, in the respect mentioned, was the sole and only reason he was slapped. He said this act had nothing to do with a confession or admission on the part of appellant. It might be added here the sheriff then searched appellant and did not find him with a pistol, or other weapon, at that time, although the proof of the state shows that previously, on more than one occasion in the course of the happenings of that night, appellant had said to Miss Carpenter and Henderson that he did have a pistol, and he told Miss Carpenter, when she tried to resist his demands, that he had killed a number of pretty girls who had refused to yield to his commands. Proceeding with the confession after the slapping incident, the sheriff testified "Then he calmed down and I began to ask him about his story on just what had happened prior to that." The sheriff said he made no suggestion, or intimation, of reward, or punishment, immunity or inducement, to appellant to make a statement; that appellant talked freely and willingly of his own accord about the events, and so made the statements as set out above.
Mr. King, the deputy sheriff, heard all, or a part, of the conversation between appellant and the sheriff. He said "the sheriff talked to Mr. Summerville and he first denied this — what happened — and a little later he said yes, he did do it. Q. Did do what? A. Said he completed his job, said he went ahead with the girl and did just what he went out to do when he carried her off." He further described his completed act by another word we will not quote. Appellant also told, as King testified, of his putting Henderson and Lott out, and his driving Miss Carpenter some distance away, of his demands upon her, and that she struck him with the flashlight, and of his accomplishment of his intentions over her resistance. Mr. King said all of this was free and voluntary; that no suggestion of punishment, reward, or inducement of any kind was held out to appellant. There was no testimony contradicting the circumstances under which these statements were made as given by the sheriff and the deputy. The trial court held the admission competent. Can we say he was clearly, or manifestly, wrong in so doing? We see no ground upon which we can do that. (Hn 4) Appellant made another statement in the nature of a confession. That was the next day while he was in jail. The sheriff, since his conversation with appellant at Herrings and after placing appellant in jail, had made an investigation, following the course of travel of these four parties the night before. Miss Carpenter had reported that appellant had taken twenty-five dollars from her. The sheriff, thinking appellant might have hidden the money back of Herrings' Station, asked him about it, and appellant replied "No, sir, I didn't rob her but I did have sexual intercourse with her." The sheriff testified "He volunteered that." Mr. King, the deputy, was also present. There is no suggestion in this record that any threat or advantage of any kind was intimated to induce the foregoing statement. Furthermore, the record does not disclose any objection was made thereto. Of course, under these circumstances, it cannot be said the admission should have been excluded because not made freely. It might be added, that the court, in clear and specific language, instructed the jury to entirely disregard and not consider any statements by any one as to whether appellant took the money from Miss Carpenter. No point is made on that. Therefore, we hold that the contention that the foregoing admissions were not free and voluntary is not well taken.
The further contention is made, as to these confessions, that appellant desired to take the witness stand and deny one, or both, of them, in the absence of the jury and preliminary to their admission before the jury, but the court would not permit him to do so except upon the condition (1) the district attorney could examine him upon the entire facts and circumstances of the merits of the case, and (2) thereafter prove before the jury what he might say in that regard. Of course, if in fact, the trial judge had imposed such a condition, that would have been reversible error. (Hn 5) The competency of a confession should be ascertained preliminary to its introduction before the jury, and an accused has the right to take the witness stand during such preliminary hearing and limit his testimony to facts bearing upon whether the confession was free and voluntary, and his testimony is entitled to be considered and weighed, along with the other evidence, by the trial judge upon the fact whether accused made the confession freely and without hope of reward or fear of punishment. Defendant further has the constitutional right not to take the stand and testify. However, (Hn 6) the record does not disclose the trial judge imposed any such condition upon the right of appellant to testify on the preliminary hearing. After some sparring between counsel for appellant and the district attorney, and a statement into the record by the court, in which he said "I will now limit the examination at this time, by way of expediting the matter, to purely the voluntary character of the confession," and counsel for appellant had said he was not then able to say whether defendant would or would not take the stand to testify on the merits, the trial judge finally remarked "The court now asks the defendant, or rather his counsel, to state whether or not he desires to take the stand at this stage of the proceedings (the jury being out) merely to contest the freedom of the confession," to which counsel for appellant replied "No, the defendant does not desire to take the stand." It is thus seen that, regardless what the idea of the trial judge might have been when these colloquies began, he finally informed appellant that he could take the stand "at this stage of the proceedings merely to contest the freedom of the confessions," and appellant declined to do that. We do not understand this right was based upon the condition that defendant was required to testify before the jury on the merits.
Affirmed.