Caseflicks

Alabama Court of Appeals • 1953

McQuirter v. State

63 So. 2d 388 | 36 Ala. App. 707 | 1953 Ala. App. LEXIS 323

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that circumstantial conduct, corroborating witnesses, and admitted statements can establish attempted rape intent, while also reflecting the court's now deeply discredited reliance on racial “social conditions and customs” in evaluating intent.

Background

A white woman, Mrs. Allen, testified that after she and three children left a diner in Atmore, McQuirter followed them closely along the street. She sought refuge at a nearby house, waited for him to pass, and then saw him emerge from behind a telephone pole as she resumed walking. After the children summoned Mr. Simmons, McQuirter retreated but remained near Mrs. Allen's home for about thirty minutes. Mrs. Allen's daughter and Simmons corroborated important parts of this account.

Police officers testified that McQuirter later said he had decided to get the first white woman who passed the truck, intended to take Mrs. Allen into a cotton patch, and would kill her if she screamed. McQuirter denied following or threatening Mrs. Allen and denied making the statements to police. He offered evidence of his good reputation.

A jury found McQuirter guilty of an attempt to commit an assault with intent to rape under an indictment charging assault with intent to rape, and assessed a $500 fine. He appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to go to the jury and sustain the verdict and that his alleged statements to police were improperly admitted.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit to the jury, and to sustain a conviction, for an attempt to commit an assault with intent to rape.

Holding

Yes. The evidence permitted the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that McQuirter intended to have intercourse with Mrs. Allen against her will by force or fear and had taken steps toward that objective that fell short of an assault.

Reasoning

The court defined the charged lesser offense as an attempted rape that has not progressed far enough to constitute an assault. To prove it, the State had to establish that McQuirter intended sexual intercourse against the prosecutrix's will, accomplished by force or by putting her in fear.

Intent ordinarily must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. A case therefore belongs to the jury when the evidence supports an inference that the defendant intended to satisfy his sexual desires despite the woman's resistance.

Mrs. Allen's account, corroborated by her daughter and Simmons, showed that McQuirter followed her closely at night, waited near the places where she sought safety, appeared again as she continued home, and remained near her house after Simmons intervened. The officers' testimony about McQuirter's admissions supplied direct evidence of an intent to seize Mrs. Allen, take her to a cotton patch, and kill her if she called out.

The court also stated that, in assessing intent, the jury could consider social conditions and customs based on racial differences, including that Mrs. Allen was white and McQuirter was Black. In light of that principle and the evidence as a whole, the court held that the trial judge properly refused the affirmative charge and properly denied a new trial based on evidentiary insufficiency.

Issue #2

Whether the trial court improperly admitted police testimony recounting McQuirter's alleged statements of intent because the State had not first proved an overt act or the corpus delicti.

Holding

No. McQuirter's objection did not preserve a corpus-delicti challenge, and, in any event, the surrounding evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable inference that the crime had been committed.

Reasoning

McQuirter objected to the officers' testimony only on general grounds that it was irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. He did not specifically object that the State had failed to establish the corpus delicti before introducing a confession. Under Alabama appellate procedure, that omission prevented review of the corpus-delicti objection.

The court further explained that a confession is admissible once the State has offered facts from which the jury could reasonably infer that the charged crime occurred. Mrs. Allen's testimony and the corroborating testimony about McQuirter's conduct supplied that threshold factual basis, and the court noted that proper predicates had been laid for the statements.