Angling v. State
| Decision Date | 18 June 1903 |
| Citation | 137 Ala. 17,34 So. 846 |
| Parties | ANGLING v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Escambia County; J. C. Richardson, Judge.
Albert Angling was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and appeals. Affirmed.
The state introduced evidence showing that the deceased died from a gunshot wound in the back, and also introduced in evidence the testimony of a confession of the defendant that he shot the deceased. During the examination of one of the witnesses for the defendant, the defendant asked him: "Did he ever hear the defendant order the dead man to stay away from his house?" The state objected to this question, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that, on the morning of the day he shot the deceased, he left his house about sunup, and was gone until about 5 o'clock in the afternoon; that, as he returned to his house, he came back, and, peeping through a crack in the house, he saw Harry Avant, the deceased, and the defendant's wife, lying on a pallet on the floor, having sexual intercourse with each other; that he thereupon ran around to the door and said that he then went into a room and, when about the middle of the floor, the deceased got up and came at him with a knife in his hand; that he (the defendant) then grabbed his gun, and whirled around and fired at the deceased; that, just as he turned around with the gun in his hand, the deceased turned to run, and he fired upon him as he ran off. On the cross-examination of the defendant as a witness, he testified that he was examined as a witness on his preliminary trial, and that his testimony was taken down in writing; and, after the testimony of the defendant that was taken down in writing on the preliminary trial was identified by the defendant, the state then offered said testimony in evidence. In this written statement of the defendant of his testimony given on the preliminary trial, and which was signed by him, the defendant stated that he shot Harry Avant, the deceased, and believed that he had a perfect right to do so, because he caught him fooling with his family; that he found the deceased sitting on a bench with his (the defendant's) wife, hugging her. The defendant objected to the introduction in evidence of the testimony of the defendant as given on the preliminary trial, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his objection and allowing the said testimony to be introduced in evidence. The defendant then offered to introduce in evidence the showing made for two absent witnesses. In the showing of one of these witnesses, the witness testified that at different times, about a month before the killing of the deceased, he had seen the deceased and the defendant's wife hugging up to one another, and that he had told the defendant of this conduct before the killing of the deceased. The other witness whose showing was offered in evidence testified that she saw the deceased and the defendant's wife go into an old house together, and that, upon going to the house, the witness found them having sexual intercourse with each other. The state separately objected to the introduction of each of these showings in evidence. The court sustained each of such objections, and refused to allow the showings to be introduced in evidence, and to these rulings the defendant duly excepted. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charge, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give the same as asked: "The court charges the jury that unless each member of the jury is convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the guilt of the defendant, from the evidence in the case, then you should find him not guilty."
J. F. Jones, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, predicated upon an indictment charging the defendant with the offense of murder in the second degree. All questions reserved upon the trial grow out of the rulings of the court upon the admission and exclusion of evidence, and the refusal of a single written charge to the defendant.
The evidence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barbour v. State
...under the plea of not guilty. Gafford v. State, 122 Ala. 54, 25 So. 10; Thomas v. State, 150 Ala. 31-40, 43 So. 371; Angling v. State, 137 Ala. 17, 34 So. 846; James v. State, 167 Ala. 14-18, 52 So. 840; McWilliams v. State, 178 Ala. 69, 60 So. 101. The pertinent inquiry was: What was the c......
-
Thomas v. State
...the court committed no error prejudicial to the defendant in declining to allow proof to be made of such fact by the defendant. Angling's Case, supra. defendant was examined in his own behalf, and his evidence in some degree tended to show that the killing was accidental. On cross-examinati......
-
Raines v. State
...and properly refused the requested instructions on self-defense. McWilliams v. State, 178 Ala. 68, 60 So. 101 (1912); Angling v. State, 137 Ala. 17, 21, 34 So. 846 (1903) ("The evidence, without dispute, establishes that the defendant shot the deceased in the back while the latter was in th......
-
Mangino v. Todd
...although they could not otherwise be overtaken. Williams v. State, 44 Ala. 41; Davis v. State, 92 Ala. 20, 9 So. 616; Angling v. State, 137 Ala. 17, 34 So. 846; Handley v. State, 96 Ala. 48, 11 So. 322, 38 Am. Rep. 81; Birt v. State, 156 Ala. 29, 46 So. 858; Suell v. Derricott, 161 Ala. 259......