Autrey v. State

• Citation: 190 Ala. 10,67 So. 237
• Decision Date: 19 November 1914
• Docket Number: 836
• Parties: AUTREY v. STATE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

67 So. 237

190 Ala. 10

AUTREY v. STATE.

No. 836

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 19, 1914

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clarke County; John T. Lackland, Judge.

John Thomas Autrey was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

T.J Bedsole, of Grove Hill, and J.V. Boyles, of Thomasville, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SOMERVILLE J.

The motion to the special venire on the ground of discrepancies between the original venire and the copy served on the defendant was without merit. Jury Act of Aug. 31, 1909, § 29; Bell v. State, 115 Ala. 25, 22 So. 526.

It sufficiently appeared that the declarations of the deceased as testified to by the witnesses for the state, were made under a sense of impending dissolution, and the objections based upon the insufficiency of the predicate were properly overruled.

The deceased's declaration to Dr. Pugh, that there was "no cause" for the killing, was obviously relevant and, if objectionable at all, it was objectionable only because it was a conclusion of the witness.

No such objection was made, and the grounds assigned were inapt.

One Stewart, a witness for the state, was allowed to testify to the declaration of deceased that defendant "had willfully murdered him, and he hoped that the good people of Clarke county would see that he was dealt with justly, according to the crime he had committed." It is obvious that this statement contains matter that is outside the scope of a dying declaration, which should be limited to the facts and circumstances of the killing. However, the objection to its admission was to the statement as a whole, and only on the ground of an insufficient predicate, and, as this ground was without merit in fact, and the first part of the statement was relevant, the objection was properly overruled.

Defendant's witness McMullen testified to a conversation with deceased at Grove Hill the year before, which indicated the existence of trouble between deceased and defendant. The witness was asked if deceased told him what he (deceased) was up there for; and upon his answering, "Yes," he was then asked to state what deceased said. In the absence of a showing that what deceased said was in some way relevant to the issues of the case, the exclusion of this question by the trial court cannot be pronounced erroneous. B.R., L. & P. Co. v Barrett, 179...