State v. Marshall
8 Ala. 302 (1845)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Testimony describing the contents of a written document that is not produced in court is inadmissible secondary evidence, and its admission is grounds for a new trial if it is likely to have misled the jury on a central issue.
Facts:
- Marshall, a man of color, was on trial for a capital offense.
- An indictment count alleged that a witness, Bryan, was Marshall's owner.
- Approximately six or seven years before the trial, Marshall brought a bill of sale for himself to Bryan.
- The bill of sale had been transferred to Bryan by a man named Erwin, with whom Bryan had never spoken about the matter.
- Bryan never paid any consideration for the transfer of the bill of sale and stated he did not consider himself Marshall's owner.
- Since the transaction involving the bill of sale, Marshall had been acting as a free man.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Alabama prosecuted Marshall, a man of color, in the Circuit Court (a trial court) on an indictment for a capital offense.
- During jury selection, the trial court excused a potential juror for cause, over the objection of the prisoner, Marshall.
- During the trial, the court admitted testimony from a witness regarding a bill of sale for Marshall, despite the document not being produced in court.
- A jury found Marshall guilty.
- Marshall appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Alabama, which is the state's highest court, challenging the trial court's rulings on jury selection and the admission of evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is testimony describing a bill of sale that was not produced in court admissible as evidence of a defendant's act of admission, and if so, does its admission warrant a new trial if it was likely to mislead the jury as to the defendant's legal status?
Opinions:
Majority - Ormond, J.
Yes, while the defendant's act of bringing the document could be admissible as an admission of his status, its admission here requires a new trial because the jury was likely misled. The physical bill of sale was not produced, so testimony about its contents constituted inadmissible secondary evidence under the best evidence rule. While the prisoner's act of bringing the paper to the witness could be construed as an admission of his status as a slave, the court allowed the witness to speak of the bill of sale without a limiting instruction. This created a high probability that the jury improperly considered the contents of the unproduced document as proven fact, which was prejudicial to the defendant on the central issue of his legal status. The court also held that a trial court has the discretion to reject a juror for cause even over the defendant's objection, as the goal is an impartial jury, not one chosen by the defendant.
Concurring - Collier, C. J.
Yes, a new trial is warranted, but for a more fundamental reason. The act of the prisoner carrying a bill of sale cannot be construed as an admission that he was a slave. There was no proof that the prisoner was aware of the document's contents or had ever spoken to the witness about it, so inferring an admission of his status from this act is improper.
Concurring - Goldthwaite, J.
Yes, a new trial should be granted. Although my own judgment would lead to an affirmance of the conviction, I will not allow a capital conviction to stand when any member of the court entertains a serious doubt as to its correctness.
Analysis:
This case demonstrates the application of the best evidence rule and the judiciary's role in preventing jury confusion. It establishes that even if testimony about an unproduced document could be relevant for a limited purpose (like proving an admission by conduct), its potential to prejudice the jury by leading them to assume the document's contents are proven can be grounds for reversal. The decision underscores the heightened scrutiny applied in capital cases, as shown by the concurring opinions. It serves as a precedent for the importance of limiting instructions and the exclusion of potentially misleading secondary evidence.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Marshall