Jones v. StateJones v. State
*1
JONES
STATE
v.
T
in all criminal
Jury tial
offense is
the demand to
the court
not violative of
dicted for misdemeanor
it
dog
justify
tiff’s
Scottsboro,
jury,
affords
after
guilty dog
We are of
nothing except the
undue
depredations.
en at
reversed,
doom,
guilty
mitting
guineas,
assuming
the
ous
cies,
killed the
the
Mullen,
“Previous
Statute —
(Court Appeals of Alabama. March
Appeal from Circuit
BBOWN,
John
James
Beversed
Por
afforded
give
dog
dog
dog,
depredations
W.W.
and was
DALEY STATE.
dog
the errors
confined
agent
issues
jury. The
prominence
is also
room
shall have
appeals. Affirmed.
Daley
legitimate inference;
1915, p.
There
C.
a written
when1
committed,
the one
killing
act
the affirmative
guinea
defendant’s
conduct,”
opinion
Constitutionality.
admission of this evidence
for the
Haralson, Judge.
testimony.
Phelps
an inference that
charge.
P. J.
shot.
for these
C
inbe
approved September 28,
prosecutions
county
killed,
any positive
Const.
is
possessed
remanded.
Bight
charge
pointed
Mayf. Dig. 128,
940, requiring
mere
guilty
found
cause remanded.
demand
charge
State.
guilty
writing.
These were
and Milo
previous
merely
speedy
.the defendant’s
plaintiff’s dog
as used
Birmingham
positive
to file with the clerk
instance,
conjecture
to the
cabes,
dog,
save
reasons
invaded
this evidence
out,
district in which
appellant
charge
agent.
misleading
also assumes
(8 Div.
Trial
Ward soon
§
the owner of
depredations
D.W.
guineas,
them from like
guilty
trial
6, guaranteeing
indictment
Jackson Coun- was not error to
pursuit
that at best
of an
vice of
depredations.
charge
it
§
Jury,
by Jury —
that
A
Ry.
by jury,
plaintiff’s
contends
province
previous
guineas,
refer
fortiori,
both of
Martin, requires
tenden
affords
is
impar-
giving moned,
in ad-
v.Co.
previ
plain-
case.
giv
in-
of 3. Homicide
it
it
short time
2. Homicide
dence that defendant was seen with a
picture
murder to show
judgment
erly
fense, such
writing.
thorizing
going whip him,
trict
in names of two
ant’s
jurors drawn,
that if the sheriff fails to summon
tbe defendant
mand for trial
Attorney General,
facts and relate to
1.
erly
mistake in the name of
refuses to attend the
sufficient to
cause,
file with
cause it
the accused shall
(Acts
(Court Appeals
Weabon —
Aid
Admissibility.
bility.
[Ed. Note.—For other
Grounds.
Homicide
Jury
Though
Under
an
©=sFor *2 REPORTS APPELLATE 16 ALABAMA — <&wkey;814(8,9) proper to a Criminal. Law exclude Instruc- tq arrange- Applicability trying make, -had been whether he tions — Evidence. murder, prosecution that In for instruction ments to kill deceased. jury if the believed of that witness instead cases, see [Ed. other they deceased, if - killed Cent. they deceased, in doubt as killed to who <&wkey;268(l) acquit properly refused, —Cross-Examination should —Use of Bloodhounds. of that the absence the witness de- trailed that bloodhounds When evidence any other than defendant killed deceased. admitted, defendant home is to his cases, [Ed. Criminal Note.—For other see by opportunity cross- the fullest should have examination to training and details of Dig. Law, § 1979.] Cent. and and into Appeal from Jackson Coun- Circuit hunt. Judge. Haralson, Witnesses, W. W. cases, see other [Ed. Note—For Dig. Fayette 939.] Cent. §§ murder La was convicted of Jones appeals. — degree, Affirm- <&wkey;268(l) second Witnesses Cross-Examina- of Bloodhounds. tion —Use ed. he trained that Where witness testified sufficiently appear. bloodhounds, from The follow- tracked defendant The facts and home, place to his of the murder ing charges were to defendant: whether (1) If of there is a reasonable by a man the same he had ever trailed where the court just innocence, be a foun- would stated that he allow dation for doubt of and reasonable his what witness as to' for his he was there and whether jui-y (2) charges if it is and Witnesses, cases, other [Ed. Note.—For carry up shown that the could take Dig. 939.] Cent. §§ lapse being after the trail of a human the time when deceased putting was killed to the time <&wkey;665(4) S. Criminal Law —Trial—Exami- trail, then on should them the Rule. nation Witness under trailing circum- It the discretion consider the as within re- violated the rule stance in this case. has maining (3) the evidence that -If find from deceased, may have Mullican killed witness íom cases, Note.—For other Criminal uncer- left in a of doubt and state Law, deceased, tainty then as to who killed — 448(4) <&wkey;368(2), Law 9. Criminal Evi- acquit defendant. should Admissibility dence Conclusion Scottsboro,' Witness. Milo prosecution murder, whether Turner, Gen., Martin, Atty. P. and W. W. L. carrying guns defendant each conclusion, for for and for the State. Asst. calling as other was excluded g'estaj. res cases, see Criminal Fayette BRICKEN, La J. The Law, Dig. 1638.] first murder in the was indicted Criminal Law —Instructions degree, of murder —Reasonable Doubt. eyewitnesses degree. were no second to the murder, failing predicate probability innocence, to would evidence, properly as out of deceased, Matton showed gunshot his death wound. came Criminal between that bad existed showed Law, 1846-1849, 1921, 1966,' .also deceased; and that <&wkey;561(l) Quantum 11. Criminal Law against threats defendant had made Proof —“Reasonable Doubt.” day doubt not from of the whole ceased; reasonable the evi- on the existing dence or 'not proximity defendant was evidence is not quittal. an ac- of- of the homicide about scene .the trailed Bloodhounds fense was committed. see Criminal Law, § 1267.] of a from the scene of the track <&wkey;l — — Appeal 186(4) the home of defendant. 12. Criminal Law Harmless Error1. the same shown to have measured charged generally Where on rea- length track of defend- width of the giving doubt, sonable accused the benefit of his as first statement ant. The defendant’s thereon, requested the instruction which was any, day if harmless homicide on the xxi), providing Court rule his home 12 o’clock. he reached appear affirmatively must be made testifying be- own “When cause, half the trial of this he swore fected the substantial defendant before day the case will be reversed. at 3 o’clock. his home on reached —Argumenta- <&wkey;>807(l) Law 13. Criminal Testimony of other showed that he witnesses tive Instructions. his home or about o’clock did reach murder, instruction that day homicide. the'dogs the afternoon if it is not shown take carry being oppor- trail of a human and time after the crime and motive elapsed, shown to. should not appear tunity to commit it consider a circum- beyond a. be established argumentative. stance, properly refused as effort doubt. There was some reasonable Criminal ¡ Law, 1865, 1959, defendant, undertaking an- to show that other cases <S^Por
JONES v. STATE other, ing; in this connection. of mistakes had and because he ing-of by motion based the offense from. merit in the the accused to show that another committed taken to fraud tend known as expressly that it .was osition injury the commission of kind of a ting picture The same act preme T. R. between the defendant tendency er, ways permissible. was without seen tion of tify fuses take in the name ler, court did not to 165 fect. statement showed ed to cause.” rors moned, deceased) sufficient State, “If This court [5] [3, [2] On the therefore admissible. stand, foliowing question: Ala. a contention, drawn, 4] There to show be of some to the but On cross-examination in make 1 Ala. Court none, ownership state. There is a short attend the sheriff fails of which was to drawing motion provides law that while it is any harm could brother the pistol he had charged, possession immaterial 51 arrangements not?” and. the held, served err in substantive preparation for merit. also objection the manifest effect of such is no this when told going whip him, jury law venire on the stand to for it a month name of all of these names of probative force, and provides or p. 317, 32, in the venire the of the testimony .in the. permitting merit in any to summon sustaining yet case possession the case summoning Section The same is a of the defendant. No conduct 55 South. state, to the-’court excepted bad Neither is summoned “You clearly permitting The (Acts 1909, p. that his uncle testified to facts were of Smith v. the defendant prove jurors case, one of the ruling before the is to well-settled that: two of the permitted objection point irrelevant. kill defendant over the resulted there or continue 29 state’s witness venire because at of Vincenzo this any did the Lonnie a motive which is al the look at the the objection page propounded your the except crime, seen with was there with testimony fail or objection of the merit the state ness must be v. any this one the the shall weapon permit proven existed is contended ground nation, jurors. killing interposed jurors picion. jurors broth objec State, Wal mov* kill- that, mis- try rul error. (the principle tes Su- act ed the mountains ju- ef- in for it to fendant that a a late confined to there tained tion the facts or brought proximate tendency rule. ment was 3 that he that he imony accorded' all principle declarations, tion of this was the remaining tion to this ings; mission took ing have South. 780. objectionable the shoe of the ant the the State, State, man, circled the hill from where the deceased and details 145 deprived sustaining character is [6, 7] State 'these testimony Ala. track, lived; dogs way asked: anything Other was no and followed it is within the discretion of the had that he went App. 103, objection There was no abuse of discretion propounded other?” kept was in the bloodhound out must be a track 8 or 10 fullest of law above in soft whom it is was; he saw this witness of the the of the hunt. Richardson v. 41 South. “Did substantial res law permitting witness, trained he would allow because The investigation. admitted, which would come this witness defendant of this the state. same, that he measured that afterwards he measured in this the opportunity, by court them, that, in rights contemplated by and defendant alleged and into all circumstances places; the objection might court, *3 question propounded court with these house where on the occasion following to shed has violated the sustaining the the attempted ever trail a man down such' 3% raised as to when L. M. etc. Under 62 mentioned; town or this about the Ben Phipps facts, a faulty sustaining 8 feet from the defendant It is a confessions dogs, instructed court’s to hunt miles South. 971. Ann. defendant should as would 383; Simpson Atnip Hadnot evidence of this Phippsi him of one man all light upon cross-examina the trail with 572; business, sought Cas. 108. It cross-exami through excepted right. having the well-settled within this to ask have evok- have been and train itself, Jarvis v. objection measure must the to where cast this which is Allen v. question conduct, court to testified defend Hall v. rule testify, county, having objec State, State, to be test ques if he dead wit per sus lay, sus- the ALABAMAAPPELLATE REPORTS insistence we find heretofore questions! tirely fendant the consideration,, hearing, ted .a an sented there that erwise extent. it must fusal to tions, affected an examination of the entire case that error affected the substantial ant before a to the defendant the benefit of the Court Practice v. over, gestee 188Ala. it did not cence which would fendant’s witness Lem eral able doubt for act of whether or each objection areWe Second. We find no First. Other the evidence are without the offense. err hour d another, oral There was no ei’ror was no evidence conclusion, other?” This held, and now could not of the crime. overlook Charge objectionable, in so be made to out of the evidence. Davis v. no reason to as to objections give charge 1, deceased came seeming this case. of conviction wrere We is not at the facts this urged, in the announced. *4 predicate third re-examine in its several is insisted rights doing. case will other than has béen again aud that charge; error in the On 3 was charged and also argumentative, Rehearing. conflicts affirmatively appear seriously all well announce and This we have and was therefore evidence, efiange whole the defendant to this several reaffirms, be reversed. The re not a will and rule in this case to show well refused the lower right carefully court seemed offered phases, under these condi application xxi), requires A propounded sought carrying noted, reasonable doubt record, founded, argued evidence, merit. tfie of the defend sustaining “Will questions pre- affirmed. clearly the substance death. on or stating of the court thus to show and is oth conclusion of reason court did done, hold that examined not exist Burks v. guns McClain commit of inno the de ask to have for re- the res court in for all giving opinion, supra. to de Willie is not More called fendant these This gen the announced are sound. en its as taken as a meritorious a fact, party tenses, (Court proper proper timony tage. brother of for under tlie training with reference to witness’ O. Austin. had testified mitted ilege granted occasion were blooded ed that testimony the court show cause. ant declined fused to shaw would not be to was announced aas Hinsliaw was afterwards attendance and a case, together against him, (lie the time drawn motion firmatively Right Axiplication denied. Fifth. The mortgage Fourth. Third. Under the authorities False ADDINGTON Tlie court to forthwith serve calculated free from their an almost list of the apxilication predicate Hinsliaw had not been of defendant's witness Lem false and summoned for whom declined to this court holds that the object Appeals the venire. Pretenses There is of witness over his another than the defendant com- Application is obtained offense of which he was Rely. list of upon court, caxiacity, etc., 1,Ala. 22 South. shows that pretense which a capacity etc. The fact that said Juror Mayf. which he did connection it is made awith Oct. or to compliance permission granted by special jurors unlimited deceive, privilege- offered, the court that Juror Hin- no merit in objection, overruled avail himself STATE. Dig. 888, Alabama. predicate put upon challenge venire. . was without Phipps. copy rehearing <&wkey;13 Materiality- must be of a material the court on the tes beings, names of the could ground has the its addition to found, was accorded Rehearing, knowledge was set for trial of the indictment with the order laid, scope the week of not take advan- and were train- used and the defend- The record see False Pre- conclusions regular the insistence drawn in this Sept. on which summoned the effort This witness for motion (74 South. cited is denied. signature no sense and it was question, Jones, .The de- charged inquiry Burton this, jurors priv- rely, the the tlie D. be Digests, ana other oases <S=»3Tor