White v. StateWhite v. State
*1 REPORTS APPELLATE ALABAMA 19 332 facturing 216. lant. ner v. facturing prohibited liquors, p. powér esis, relevant and circumstances 352, App. 456, Fillmore 94; force Mitchell parte crime known p 82, within and that agent. by veyed article ness Ala. ant’s to the exclusion of them factured, smell as, 98, ferent cited foregoing. merely South. rant rial, James T. E. No brief reached the Certiorari denied The affirmative Harwell The facts [3] Smell State, 72, questions circumstantial and Milner v. if believed 92 Morris knows the they by appellant guilt beyond State, Whetstone, as to convince the 910; has an odor statement held that the time named in the conviction. Martin, through Whetstone was 18 Ala. should 93 South. South. at the Ala. are 306, men know 82, State, In the Wadsworth G. vf 18 have mind. to the addressed proven point authorized to competent, App. 401, one 245; were based agent Ala. odor, place designated, .admits App. 119, Spelce’s Case, have may testify which information is con. 18 been sustained. Spelce Case, supra, 210 [1] of the five senses of 61; by Morris v. App. 157, law, may Montgomery, for instant Ala. liquor, whisky fact. The other not in conflict with if the Defendant’s Gamble v. reasonable with such things. evidence did. The offense of 18 Reeves v. Supreme not in Ala. its Cannon v. convicted of- App. jury reasonable Ala. State, Ala. 89 South. own to the defendant witnesses identity given. case were such so find. 463, evidence wh"en 89 South. be point. would 334, Whenever" its App. The cases Court 18 every other indictment, the sources the defend established where convincing 98 S'outh. objections probative Spelce very. dif 98; Mitchell appeals. “smell.” 435, hypoth justify manu- manu manu- appel- as to it was mate ante, man, App. 306; war Mil- 157, wit de- Ex be free from reversible 92 an have been examined ity request guilty to a should doubt cedent. a case er 4. Criminal was free from fault ed' the 5. Homicide ever ty ; W. W1 versed and remanded. and there act on even Éx sity ter in doubt 1. Homicide fatal Rehearing covered on tive case dence in case of reasonable of pretermitting “The We find Walter White Certiorari These Criminal ,The In a The refusal of The use of the word of Mandate request moral to the .South. in the minds of the guilt, rulings' to warrant acquitt shot. killing. evidence, court is must exclude prosecution for ^by to who is affirmed. not certainty no error in law law but which renders no mode of where Denied &wkey;j300(14) Request pretermits defendant &wkey;234(I) denied, granted v. of killed ' requesting party. no &wkey;829(I) &wkey;789(l5) Request (Re t&wkey;753(l) jury fired the STATE. while were refused to defendant: request conviction held there reasonable it bad. every White v. April 17, if evidence tends request Alabama. by us, court convicted must find by Supreme who life, —Defendant danger, manslaughter, the — doubt appearance of error. not is escape is such Court —Refusal held which supposition but that “supposition,” in á shot that covered — (7 Div. any evidence, on asks it. helé killing. — argued in General mode State) as to not the admissibil- as to DeKalb Coun- April 10, July 10, 1923.) then are of the neces bad. as to exclude if defendant manslaugh- if, as to effect error. should nev- South. killed who found to Court error, faulty acquitted under all he could Affirmed difficulty occasion affirma- request things, except brief, 1923. make how- stat- fired Re- de- and KEY-NUMBER cases see same other <§=:For *2 v. STATE Ala.App.) (19 duty Throughout exception the entire trial no difficulty, is the then it of this any acquit charge ruling defendant. of the was reserved to refusal of several written court. The jury, you, gentlemen that charges requested “2. I any individ- you if the defendant convict cannot re- effect a defendant are relied beyond guilt juror his convinced of is not ual judgment appealed’'from. versal of the certainty. and to moral doubt you, gentlemen charges appear given and the rec- in refused jury, that “3. I designation. ord without number or other you must preparation In of records the clerk a moral to exclude to such as the certainty designate by number letter all but that of. charges or refused order to avoid m guilt. uncertainty. jury, confusion and We have so num- gentlemen of the “4. I beyond juror charges pur- be convinced in this record must bered' the for the each all reasonable guilt defendant’s poses doubt of stated. you can [1, before proper convict Refused numbered 2J you eharge I “5. ly law, states but its refusal was er you you can- in this case if believe ror, fully as the oral of the court cov not convict the proposition ered the- in this embraced' jury, you, gentlemen “6. you you case if believe charges Refused 2 and 4 also state correct acquit must the defendant.” propositions charge 7, but cov- charge you, gdntlemen “S. I point ers the same identi- this case that find from the evidence charges, cal with refusal was free from fault in these ivas and therefore their no reasonable and there was on the without his dan- mode of his supposition [3] The word renders refused ap- ger. act on then he could 3 bad. In Smith v. things pearance and act even 193, 202, 316, 320, the. life.” discussing a similar said: gave at defendant’s “Moreover, properly refused, request. ‘suppbsition.’ for the in this All use of the word state, of such a refusal that, you, gentlemen “7. I eharge erroneous, hereby is' overruled.” every juror is convinced unless each Dawson beyond defendant’s Richardson you cannnot convict him.” reversed viction was trial he fendant murder first p. 92, with second ed out Field, peal tive in reference to Brown Payne, State, supra), and The second On this BRICKEN, I. M. Counsel confessed defining degree. in this case. 569. 93 South. Asst. use charge using indictment Presley filed charges, argue trial appellant. the second refused. Walters v. Atty. Gen., degree it. eharge convicted for Davis, P. J. and fourth and O. plea IS Lawman v. term the court below the de- car. That the car ran but murder. On charged White state, 69: Windom v. error in the Atty. Gen., of former cause A. degree; manslaughter cite action “self-defense” word AYolfes, is the the trial manslaughter court remanded. no authorities. the defendant his son Hobson “supposition” of one acquittal is defective both of Ft. second are defec- (White proceed- plea 18 Ala. he was overtaken former Damar juror. with- con- Ala.' ap- be- around' across the road and of around the And the defendant public law direct fendant was Horton, shotgun es were be denied that tomobile there was some testimony the court could not as a matter of should never be dence, be, tending to his home about Casey, sponse oft-announced ceased, the deternlination of the trial show: That The defendant offered evidence occupied by deceased, Pope Horton, asks Refused from the alone however road son-in-law of deceased. time deceased, got in his properly he in order to let the car in a head verdict for defendant. very we (defendant) did blowing he rule that weak hand, Horton, must hold that son and buggy, not know refused. While it testified: 2% and inconclusive case 5 and 6 were each out of the car with a an automobile which traveling miles distant. the horn and also Dr. horse, turned defendant and ran son-in-law of de who was in the and under stopped. and whirled That out Under this of fact for very pass, eharge cannot charg public in re- L.M. That pale. evi the the au- yet de APPELLATE REPORTS 10 ALABAMA South. 257) me. I said to shoot intended seen me, hadn’t and I 908.) to Mr. Horton not to shoot LAUREN v. STATE. gun and than said that till raised more fired and the load from July 10, (Court Appeals shotgun came in.my great it tore across and hole shirt—a &wkey;>2&3 Indictment and information *3 —General strip my large off and tore hit hole—and side two verdict referable to either of my shooting commenced was When the side. good counts. car.” back a little the behind ,an indict- Where there two counts verdict, verdict ment referred to rendered thereon. the and a him in also Hobson Horton judgment good and the count either proximity, pistol etc. close neck with pistol until after That he never <S=35i(3)— Evidence of de- 2. upon hit. That and he had been fired flight, hiding, or fendant’s admissible. him, anything to said never Mm soon fire at to commenced stepped tending prove flight Evidence to of de- There was other the car. from hiding out, or that he was to avoid tending import, show to dence of arrest, is admissible. appellant asked On this evidence facts. following charge: Cherokee Coun- ty; W. that if W. in this case from find 'James Lauren W. was indicted under two quietly going and down was defendant was free from counts, charging manufacturing bringing on the fault liquors possessing gen- and Oasey still. Erom a cut off his Hortons and and if the escape judgment thereon, him, opened eral verdict of then he had and and on. fire to fire self-defense.” fect of the manded. peculiarly mits the ger having postulates part.of eral, the time of son, appealed it omits the returned there other similar lieved to so law effect tions. Ex tically upon the effect of should have been tacking party; (cid:127)some Reversed PER Eor T5] imminent sustain or upon was no On Mandate opinion, peril While, as CURIAM. from applicable the freedom testimony error and remanded. of the defendant the court peril element testimony 8. refused to apparently testimony question fire; reasonable mode of no error was ex shooting; error parties, reversed, stated, designated, applied rel. Affirmed on under the also danger of self-defense abstract, above may charge Davis, Attorney We think in its in the from fault on requested. cut off under these refuse to the evidence fode defendant, preter- quoted, to defendant testimony to kill—that refusal. imminent at the required to testimony, case, required rule, as there the cause re- upon Court. for this rea-' authority be- trial, if specifically escape, it fact relating time he We are the at- the ef- § condi- prac- bear- Gen dan- that may also No was the' Sie from is, do dict judgment counts in an judgment raided searched for defendant at after ant’s arrest, crime to and of bad made ments terial an affirmative 2. Criminal law 1. Witnesses sible. We PARTRIDGE discrediting Where there Where witness conflicting be referred i home and matter, it was brief reached the still differing evidence defendant was prove rendered such relevant. For this no error permissible affirmed. @=389 'indictment and differing from sheriff could when could not find statements. <@=>753(I) v. STATE. to shown —Evidence [11 thereon. competent either denied flight the officers found from conflict Where there áre refused. hiding out, —Affirmative that defendant ran to good and near testimony Hughes testify prosecution prove flight, iu the of declarations July purpose, sjiow count as to a defendant, refused. 10, 1923.) purpose defend that he verdict admis- Sítate. state- avoid ver two ma- or <&wkey;For same and KEY-NUMBER other cases see