Amos v. State
Decision Date | 21 February 1888 |
Citation | 83 Ala. 1,3 So. 749 |
Parties | AMOS ET AL. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, De Kalb county; JOHN B. TALLY, Judge.
The indictment in this case charged that Rube Amos, Bud Amos, and Tobe Amos, "unlawfully, and with malice aforethought killed William Fuller, by striking him with an axe;" or as alleged in the second count, "by stabbing him with a knife;" or, as in the third count, "by striking him with an axe, and cutting and stabbing him with knives." Bud and Tobe Amos, being duly arraigned, and on trial together, applied for a change of venue, and excepted to the refusal of the court to grant it; after which they pleaded not guilty, and were tried on issue joined on that plea being convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for 20 years. On the trial, as appears from the bill of exceptions, it was proved that the homicide was committed on the evening of February 3, 1886, in "an old outhouse on the mountain, about fifty yards from the public road," where the deceased had gone in company with a lewd woman, Elizabeth Rigeby by name, whose testimony was as follows: The state introduced evidence, also, tending to show that the defendants went to the house by preconcert, for the purpose of driving Fuller and the woman out of the house, where there were some beds and other things which belonged to Rube Amos, or his deceased wife. Fuller died of his wounds in a few hours, and the defendants were arrested on the next day, charged with murder. J. J. Ferguson and Elijah Kidd, by whom they were arrested, were examined as witnesses for the state, and each was asked, "What did Tobe Amos say about participating in the killing of William Fuller?" Each answered, "Tobe Amos said, if he had taken his wife's advice he would not have been in the condition he was;" but neither of the witnesses stated any other circumstances attending these declarations. The defendants objected to both the question and answer severally, and excepted to their admission as evidence. There was evidence, also, of declarations by Rube Amos, to the effect that he alone inflicted the injuries on Fuller; and Tobe Amos testified on the trial that the difficulty occurred between Fuller and Rube Amos before he and Bud Amos reached the house, and that Rube was shot in the hand by Fuller. There were numerous exceptions to the admission of evidence, which need no special notice. The defendants requested the following charges in writing: (10) "Before the jury can convict the defendants, they must be satisfied from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they killed or helped to kill Fuller, by an axe or knife, or an axe and knives; and if there is such conflict in the evidence, as to an axe being used by Bud Amos, as to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury as to whether he used an axe, and if they are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he used a knife, and there was no conspiracy between the three Amos boys, then they must acquit Bud Amos." (11) "Before the jury can convict the defendants, they must be satisfied from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that they killed the deceased with an axe, or helped to kill him, with an axe, or a knife, or an axe and knives; and if, from the evidence, there is such circumstances to refute and contradict the fact that Tobe Amos, on the occasion of the killing, used a knife; and if they are satisfied that Tobe Amos never used an axe, and that there was no conspiracy, then they must acquit Tobe Amos." (14) "Before the jury can convict the defendants, the proof must exclude every other hypothesis but that of their guilt." The court refused each of these charges, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stokley v. State
...20, 32, 1 So. 577; Jordan v. State, 82 Ala. 1, 2 So. 460; Martin v. State, 89 Ala. 115, 8 So. 23, 18 Am.St.Rep. 91; Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749, 3 Am.St.Rep. 682; Tidwell v. State, 70 Ala. 33; Tanner v. State, 92 Ala. 1, 9 So. 613; Brunson v. State, 124 Ala. 37, 27 So. 410; Frank v.......
-
Killough v. State
...of law, the act of all. Stokley v. State, 254 Ala. 534, 49 So.2d 284 (1951); Martin v. State, 89 Ala. 115, 8 So. 23 (1889); Amos v. State, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749 (1887). The criminal law does not attempt to assess guilt in complicity by any device of percentage of fault, rather, where joint a......
-
Morris v. State
... ... Wood's Case, ... 128 Ala. 27, 29 So. 557, 86 Am. St. Rep. 71; Dixon's ... Case, 128 Ala. 54, 29 So. 623; Armor's Case, 63 Ala. 173; ... Stitt's Case, 91 Ala. 10, 8 So. 669, 24 Am. St. Rep. 853; ... Smith's Case, 88 Ala. 73, 7 So. 52; Seam's Case, 84 ... Ala. 411, 4 So. 521; Amos' Case, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749, 3 ... Am. St. Rep. 682; Plant's Case, 140 Ala. 52, 37 So. 159 ... In this view, the shooting of McClellan by defendant, the ... drawing of a second pistol by John, Jr., and, to repeat, ... everything done and said by the parties while engaged in the ... difficulty ... ...
-
National Park Bank of New York v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
... ... liability. Demurrer was sustained; plaintiff took a nonsuit, ... and prosecutes this appeal ... The ... rule prevailing in this state is that, where there are ... several grounds of demurrer, some of which are sufficient and ... others insufficient, and the judgment sustaining the ... Smith v ... State, 52 Ala. 407; Jordan v. State, 79 Ala. 9; ... Williams et al. v. State, 81 Ala. 1, ... [74 So. 72] Amos v. State, 83 Ala ... 1; Gibson v. State, 89 Ala. 121, 8 So. 98, 18 ... Am.St.Rep. 96; Martin v. State, 89 Ala. 115, 8 So. 23, ... 18 ... ...