Lowrey v. StateLowrey v. State
*1 fellow, conflict in other bought had it from jury question and the him, wanted to made'a belonged said it controlling and properly this, the except little submitted one there everything in sell consider- the'jury for belonged question, to his decisive plate he reserved hot everything on the ation determination. brother. Outside inside went.” exceptions reserved were a few rulings to the court’s dispute in the It is without excep- rejection but these the sum of paid Compton clearly without merit discus- tions are so question. property in for the $550.00 unnecessary. wholly is deemed sion thereof fellow” referred It “the in the action of the There was no error King, and witness to above Jesse overruling denying defendant’s effect, property he testified motion for a new trial. Wright E. belonged to D. filling station a store located in in said had (King) rented that he selling de- time of his out to
store groceries, small
fendant, had a stock
gas oil, etc. by appellant. The
No brief contained in the the facts” “statement State, appears be sus- brief filed LOWREY v. STATE. record, and is as follows: tained ap- evidence was that “The State’s of Alabama. witness, Compton,
pellant sold Feb. box, register, cash show- ice $550.00 Rehearing box, a drink sets of scales and Denied Compton that he he told owned and that bought it from some had property and appellant did not fellow; Wright Mr. owned property, that rest of register and claimed the the cash ap- Wright told the property, that Mr. filling pellant certain items gave that he belonged him and station permission to use certain
items. testimony was that he
“The from Mr. filling station business
bought the building; keep he could
King long how landlord, Wright, and Mr. to see the went buy right him to all asked it King asked Mr.
the business from Mr. keep building; long he could
King how of the sale and Wright approved
that Mr. King owed him little Mr. him that
told mortgage had on a
money, that he King and was all belonging to Mr.
cow purchase, and make go on right anything about Wright never said
that Mr. equipment filling owning just bought sold what he
station; that he bill of sale had witness and that ownership.” prove his *2 injury bodily and harm. His own by which was corroborated of other tended to
bear him out in insistence. stated, As the evidence on this crucial is- conflict, hence, sue was in sharp for jury. determination Upon the trial evidence was to take a scope. wide unusual We are and opinion permitted by this was McDuffie, De of Tus- Graffenried learned trial judge in of the dual view caloosa, Linden, Drinkard, and W. interposed pleas answer to indict- in nothing ment. We in this see connection injuriously which affect the sub- tended to Carmichael, Gen., Atty. A. and A. Jas. rights defendant. of the exceptions Pending the trial innumerable BRICKEN, Judge. Presiding rulings of the Able were court. reserved co- and earnest counsel for No regu- involved to the pious prepared well briefs. have larity of and proceedings in the trial of carefully, ex- painstakingly by attentively and proper. this case shown the record 'every considered each and rul- amined and indicted, charged The defendant was complained of as ing the trial court the offense in with the first de- and to find have failed gree, Unlawfully in that “he with and erroneously of the which tended to malice aforethought, Belton killed James the substantial affect Lowrey, by gun shooting him with entail an al- It would pistol,” etc. to discuss these in- unending most task indictment, upon In answer to the ar- detail, questions numerable in in view raignment, interposed he plea his of not full, clear, exhaustive correct guilty, (2) guilty by not reason of in- court, which cov- instructions of the sanity. every phase ered law involved The trial resulted in the conviction of connection, exception which no this and to manslaughter defendant for the offense reserved, good pur- serve no would punishment in the fixed at deal with discuss pose this court to imprisonment in the insistences, which detail all of these period years. of five necessarily in the mere reiter- result would transcript, portrays The involved, principles of law ation tragedy, unfortunate a most wherein the and announced have been decided which father, admittedly, killed own son. Un- his many years by the courts of plea guilty his of not der defense, The of self its this State. ttpon It appears self defense. lied aspect, pertaining and also every grievously that this wounded plea guilty not insanity, reason of combat, mutual evidence dis- fully fairly given, shot several times closes was his son. charge most excellent oral The evidence this connection in con- which consumed about pages fifteen That for the tended flict. to show transcript, but also in the given only entered that defendant into charges requested by defendant, which willingly, fight acts con- sixty about were in number. contributed to duct the dif- On the two material issues involved in resulted death of ficulty issue, the evidence as to each son, Lowrey. Belton own James jury conflict and consider hand, stren- determine. uously insisted forced to take protect of his son in order to the life We are clear to the that it life, suffering affirmatively save him that a fair and im- contemplates partial trial, firing room with such as the law ac- three or four provides, shots at accorded fled. three upon each in this case. cused *3 wounds, the Marcus jury in its Dr. ample issue the evidence of to justify Skinner, surgeon the judgment of examined who verdict, the and to sustain that treated the upon wounds him disclosed entered. pronounced conviction body appellant said wounds entered the of is from the rear. His to statement as Rehearing. said follows: of “These said wounds application On the the fol- rehearing opinion each my M. Lowrey Leonard lowing appears: insistence “We earn- also body point made their of entrance into estly insist the that Trial Court erred fact undisputed from the rear.” This give refusing to general the affirmative strongly the evidence tends to corroborate pre- the Lowrey, Jr., M. of witness Leonard ponderance the in fact the of evidence and herein- eyewitness to the referred almost in the case uncontroverted above. doubt, showed, beyond reasonable sound rehearing the application In shooting that the occurred appellant complains counsel the also of home, aggressor the the that deceased was the trial of court wherein the court throughout, difficulty, provoked the prove wit to appellant acting that under reason- the Lowrey, ness Mrs. L. M. wife defend of apprehension able that in im- life ant, deceased, and mother that of within danger being minent of taken at the time minutes two the that de shooting after pistol the resulting he fired the shot “Mother, her, anything ceased to said death the evidence shows of deceased. The happens me, you my will take to care of clearly regardless that, fired the of pretermit children.” contro the shot, pistol the deceased had loaded question verted whether not the or to pointed in his hand at complained gestae, matter of was of res of had made immediate threats taking insistence to time, life of at the immediate question properly present effect the is entire and that the conduct consideration, are as we clear ed that indicate was such conclusion, the en after an examination him- defending it was either inured prejudicial that no error tire cause immediate as- being self or killed ruling. as a result said upon him the time being committed sault is, be reversal appeal on will by the deceased.” improper admission grounds charged insist- foregoing stated in facts evidence, unless, rejection of sustained ence are not ex after respects. many is are unfounded ap entire amination case which entitled de- phase of this no alleged complained pears pre- verdict. The directed fendant sub has affected the probably evidence, by numerous ponderance of rights of In line the defendant. strongly to show that the tends Supreme Rule with the only, profan'e violent and defendant not Appendix ap conduct, Tit. 7 Code is also belligerant contrib- bar. plicable to the case at rule is the situation Said uted to difficulty, may judgment “Hereafter no but also he en- as follows: caused the aside, willingly. The tes- be reversed set nor into the combat new tered by any timony only eyewitness granted by to the fatal this court or state, any civil the son of Leon- of this or criminal case shooting was witness, Lowrey, among ground jury, This misdirection of the M. ard Jr. special charges or refusal of things, stated he his father shoot giving saw first, improper or rejection he fired one in- or shot the deceased proximity, body in close nor for error as to matter of of deceased procedure, pleading opin- fled unless in the then turned and appeal to which ion made, taken, after an ex- application is cause, it should amination entire complained of appear the error substantial injuriously affected
probably parties.” BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.
Opinion for re- Application extended. overruled. hearing appeal is from final order and Carter,
judgment Eugene Honorable *4 Judge Montgomery circuit court County, appellant’s petition wherein writ corpus of habeas was denied.
Appellant petition based his for writ corpus upon fact, habeas the statement of to be 34 uncontroverted. TAYLOR v. STATE. Petitioner, Taylor, alias Johnnie Taylor, County, was sentenced in Etowah Alabama, for the offense Alabama.
Court of second 16, March 1948. years flat term day of 17 on the 21st December, 1932, and at which time he
began serving his sentence. 6th On day 1933, September, he was released order day Governor on a tempo- 60 rary parole, from which he returned on November, 20, 1933. On ,1933, December paroled pending good was behavior. January 25, parole revoked was 1937, Kilby he was received 'back at February, parole from this on the 3rd of 1937, days 9 after revocation some 22, 1938, parole. tem- On days porarily paroled for 30 and this days extended further another on the 1938, April day 22nd still another granted day him extension on the 21st 1938, May, day June, 23rd 19, 1939, paroled pending On he was June parole good behavior and was revoked 1940, May and he from parole 29, 1940, May revoked days parole. after revocation He was Rains, Gadsden, Rains paroled pending good behavior 2nd September, 1944 declared de- 13, 1944,
linquent October delinquency on date that same ceived Kilby Prison. revocation order Board dated Parole November 8, 1945, January Johnnie Carmichael, Atty. Gen., A. A. and Jas. prison and Taylor left classified escapee. The records introduced show- as an February 3, Class “C” on demotion parole, and revoked 1937, for demoted to