From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Minirth v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 21, 1960
117 So. 2d 360 (Ala. 1960)

Summary

In Minirth v. State, 270 Ala. 228, 117 So.2d 360, though certiorari was denied, the reasoning of this court was amplified.

Summary of this case from Lee v. State

Opinion

7 Div. 490.

January 21, 1960.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals, 117 So.2d 355.

Frank B. Embry, Pell City, for petitioner.

MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., opposed.


Minirth was convicted of possessing a still, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The only point argued in this court on petition for writ of certiorari is the sufficiency of the predicate for Minirth's confession that "the still was his and Mig Mayner's" (the other man arrested at the still when raided by two officers).

As shown by the opinion of the Court of Appeals, each of the officers was questioned as to the voluntariness of the confession but were not asked if anyone in their presence made any threats, promises, etc. The predicate dealt only with the acts or declarations of the witness.

The Court of Appeals recognized that that this type of questioning was not sufficient under Carr v. State, 17 Ala. App. 539, 85 So. 852, but held:

"It is clear that the two officers and the two prisoners were the only persons present. We think it would be here illogical and contrary to experience to expect that any inducement moving Minirth could have come from his fellow captive, Mig Mayner. By bringing out the absence of menaces or promises from the Federal agents seriatim, the solicitor closed the circle."

We wish to amplify the second sentence by adding "in view of the fact that Minirth had stated that the still belonged to both of them." Had he claimed sole ownership in himself, it could have been as the result of a threat or promise from "his fellow captive, Mig Mayner," but since his confession included, and did not exclude, Mayner, we think it reasonable to construe the record as showing that the confession did not result from any undue influence on the part of Mayner.

Writ denied.

LAWSON, STAKELY and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Minirth v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan 21, 1960
117 So. 2d 360 (Ala. 1960)

In Minirth v. State, 270 Ala. 228, 117 So.2d 360, though certiorari was denied, the reasoning of this court was amplified.

Summary of this case from Lee v. State

In Minirth v. State, 270 Ala. 228, 117 So.2d 360, Mr. Justice Merrill has pointed out the possibility of an accomplice's using improper inducement.

Summary of this case from Brown v. State
Case details for

Minirth v. State

Case Details

Full title:John F. MINIRTH v. STATE of Alabama

Court:Supreme Court of Alabama

Date published: Jan 21, 1960

Citations

117 So. 2d 360 (Ala. 1960)
117 So. 2d 360

Citing Cases

Webb v. State

Even where there is credible testimony to the contrary, if the evidence is fairly capable of supporting the…

Thompson v. State

Even where there is credible testimony to the contrary, if the evidence is fairly capable of supporting the…