*1
ALABAMA APPELLATE
18
REPORTS
282
only
charge
training
distilling
court,
appeal,
the
illicit
his
review
of
or
“This
on
can
rulings
courts,
not
and
actions and
of the trial
in
children to be wild-catters. The .solicitor
those of counsel.”
argument
closing
jury
to the
said:
his
having
court,
de-
ruled with the
The trial
you
you
jury,
of the
“Gentlemen
have before
re-
fendant with reference to the solicitor’s
marks,
has
a
all
an old criminal. He
his life and
been
criminal
ought
put up
and,
exception,
be
for
an
to
the rest of
not
was
entitled to
days.
family
has
He
raised this
of bastard
having
his
made
no
for
new trial
been
motion
a
brought
up
them and
children and
trained them
overruled,
give
cannot
the
and
this court
to
up
them to
and trained
be wild-catters. He
of
defendant
the benefit
consideration
of a
girl,
mother,
their
took that
and seduced her
question
presented as
the
a
in
not
was
case
years
age.”
of
at 15
State,
App. 61,
75
v.
16 Ala.
Cassemus
267.
South.
charged
The defendant was
trial
on
with
charges requested by de
[3] The written
killing
George Stephens,
the
of
and it was
by
court, in
far
fendant and
the
so
Refused
duty
the
of
and the
the court
solicitor to see
law,
they
principles
assert correct
of
as
and,
guilty,
tried,
that he was
if
convicted'
by
fully
amply
the oral
are
covered
and
punishment
fixed,
of that offense
his
and
charge
charges
of
and the written
the court
upon
verdict, uninfluenced,
based
far as
that
as
_
given
request
at the
of defendant.
possible, by
proof
incidental
of other
record,
the
find no error in the
and
We
Coming
did,
many
violations
law.
it
of
as
at the judgment is affirmed.
long trial,
a
close of
in which
wit
Affirmed.
nesses had testified for the state to facts and
tending
impress
jury
circumstances
along
to
the
(91
502)
solicitor,
of the
the lines
the
remarks of
South.
during
closing
789.)
and
the
(8
address of
the
solicit-
STATE.
Div.
VICKERS
v.
jury,
subject
or
the
to
the remarks
to
were
21,
Appeals
(Court of
Alabama. June
1921.
of
objection interposed,
prop
the
erly
and the court
4, 1921.)
Rehearing Denied Oct.
ruling
ruled. The
so
court was
of the
point
¡&wkey;564(4)
clear
to
suf-
and
the.
raised.
It
true
1. Criminal
law
—Evidence held
is
ficient to
venue.
making
ruling
establish
court
in
the
“My
the
said
also
testimony
prosecution
murder,
In a
of
only testimony
for
recollection the
is that
deceased’s
had a
defendant and deceased’
widow that
time,
he was convicted ene
that he
not
has
difficulty
place
in a field at our
“down
times,”
been convicted several
solic
and the
difficulty
county,”
in Jackson
and
in
that
this
said,
itor then
is an inference I
“That
draw
fired,
shot was
was
the
sufficient to establish
testimony.”
from the
But as to this re
county.
the
in
venue
Jackson
solicitor,
mark of the court and of the
there
objection
by defendant,
&wkey;>l
was
169(5)
and the
court
2. Criminal
law
admis-
in
—Error
by
“No, gentlemen
sion of evidence is cured
exclusion.
jury,
said:
of the
I sustain
homicide,
If,
prosecution
objection.
ain
for
was
there
the
You will not consider that.”
admitting
clothing
error in
of
in evidence all the
According
record,
to the
the defendant ex
by
deceased,
it was cured
the exclusion of
cepted
response
ruling
court,
to this
of the
in
made
evidence on motion of
the
defendant.
objection.
dealing
to his
In
with
objections
solicitor,
the
to the remark of the
—
&wkey;j695(6)
objection
Criminal
law
General
3.
promptly
the court
and
each time
ruled with
unavailing.
part
to evidence admissible in
is
State,
defendant.
411,
In Moulton v.
Ala.
199
testimony given by
Where the
the defendant
454,
74 South.
the trial court ruled
preliminary
introduced,
the
an
at
trial was
adversely
objections. So, objection
ground
on the defendant’s
on
that
of the tes-
the
some
stating
timony
illegal,
State,
also,
48,
part
in Scott
110
was
without
v.
the
Ala.
20 South.
illegal,
general.
to be
is
claimed
too
Such,
State,
468.
was
case in
the
Jones v.
76,
500,
Bridgeforth’s
170 Ala.
54 South.
and
&wkey;>l
&wkey;>
17OJ/2(2)
Criminal
law
4.
—Witnesses
Case,
App. 584,
158,
16 Ala.
80 South.
and
237(3)
should not
is cured
Question
assume fact not
—
Case,
589,
App.
Gardner’s
17 Ala.
87 South.
proven,
by
refuting
but error
answer
885,
State,
476,
and in Cross v.
68 Ala.
the
assumption.
court said:
question
The solicitor should not frame his
proven,
to assume a
as
fact not
so
but when the
refute the
Speaking
conclusion of this
of the
court as
way
answers in such a
as to
witness
improper
reversal on error for
statements
to
assumption, it is harmless error.
by
objec-
argument,
in
counsel
“there must be
objection overruled,
below, the
tion in the court
&wkey;»l5l(3)
proving
Homicide
of
5.
the
—Burden
exception reserved.”
and an
taking
necessity
life
of
is on defendant.
prosecution,
In a murder
the burden is on
objection
In
case at bar the
was sus
the
to
defendant
show that
the
there was a neces-
Birmingham Ry.,
In
L. & P.
v.
tained.
Co.
sity
deceased,
the
of
to take
life
or
the
that
Drennen,
876,
338-350,
Ala.
57 South.
175
impress
were such as to
circumstances
on the
1914C, 1037,
Supreme
880,
person
Ann. Cas.
the
aof
reasonable
a belief
.mind
that there
necessity,
speaking through Mayfield, J.,
impress
Court,
a
such
and did
said:
so
was
him.
Digests
Key-Numbered
in all
and Indexes
topic
same
ana KEY-NUMBER
other
see
cases
*2
283
STATE
v.
VICKERS
(18 Ala.App.)
-defendant
swers,
.erly refused,
er.
924.
49
preliminary
rules
had
36,
ty ;
The solicitor
6.
called
ting
to
retreat,
first
7.
“if deceased mode
Joe
was
a
charge.
that Vickers
757;
State.
ed this
his own house
county,”
no reasonable mode
“down
tend
demonstration
may
the defendant
a
treat heid
ant
to house
The other
“The one
Brief
Mrs.
Appeal
The venue was
Certiorari
Harwell G.
Milo
John Vickers
Charge 2
difficulty,
man
Homicide
draw a
Homicide
-
91 So. 502
Ala. Ct. App.1921AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.