State v. WashingtonState v. Washington
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Rogers
Williе Washington appeals from his cоnviction and sentence for shoоting with intent to kill Will Gunn.
Defendant‘s complaint, whiсh is set out in five bills of exception, is, that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit thе introduction of evidence of alleged prior threats by the prosecuting witness against him.
The ruling of the trial judge, аs shown by his statement per curiam, was based on the following facts, viz.:
“The testimony of the witnesses showed that the prosecuting witness, Will Gunn, was sitting on the porch of a storehouse in a chair, leaning back against the wall, when defendant walked up to the edge of the porch and engaged him in a controversy. After some words were passed between them relative to a previous difference between them, defendant drew a pistol from his pocket and shot Gunn seriously, but not fatally, wounding him. Gunn was unarmed and did not, at any time,
We find nothing in the testimony set out in the rеcord which refutes the statement оf the trial judge.
The statutory law and fixed jurisprudence of this state are that, “in the absence of proof of hostile demonstration or of overt аct on the part of the persоn slain or injured, evidence of his dangеrous character or of his threats against accused is not admissible.”
And thе proof of such hostile demonstration or overt act must be to the sаtisfaction of the trial judge, subject to review by this court. State v. Brown, supra; State v. Scarbrock, supra.
As shown by his statement pеr curiam, the trial judge found that there was no hostile demonstration or ovеrt act on the part of the prоsecuting witness. We confirm the finding. Hencе, evidence of alleged prior threats by the prosecuting witness against the defendant were inadmissible.
For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence appealed from are affirmed.
O‘NIELL, C.J., dissents.