Barron v. State, 2 Div. 675.
| Decision Date | 28 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 675. |
| Citation | 193 So. 190,29 Ala.App. 137 |
| Parties | BARRON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 9, 1940.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; John Miller, Judge.
Lenora alias Leona, Barron was convicted of murder in the second degree, and she appeals.
Affirmed.
Judson C. Locke, of Marion, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Vardaman, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The homicide grew out of a difficulty between the deceased and the appellant during which appellant stabbed or cut the deceased just above the first rib on the left breast and on the back. The deceased was taken to the office of Dr. Meig immediately after the difficulty, and while the Doctor was sewing up her wounds, she died. Dr. Meig testified that, in his opinion, the wounds on her body would not have produced death, but that the fight and the cutting produced shock and, in his opinion, death was due either from shock or heart trouble. Dr. Meig did not make a close examination of the wound. He did not probe it and did not see or examine the sub-clavical vein.
On the third day after the death of deceased, the body was examined by Dr. Jones after it had been prepared for burial. At which time Dr. Jones made a thorough examination of the wound in the front part of the body and as a result of that examination, he testified that the sub-clavical vein had been cut in two and that the severing of that vein would cause death inevitably in a few minutes, and in his opinion the deceased died from the effects of that wound. This presented one of the issues in the case.
There was objection to the testimony of Dr. Jones, on the ground that the examination made by him was too remote and that it was not shown that the body was in the same condition as it was when examination was made by Dr. Meig. Whatever error there may have been in permitting this testimony by Dr. Jones, same was rendered harmless by the Undertaker, who identified the body, the wound and the condition as being the same as when it was examined by Dr. Meig.
The principal question presented by this appeal arises in an exception reserved to a part of the Court's Oral Charge as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. John v. State, 7 Div. 329
...that the shooting did not have to be the sole cause of his death. The court quoted from the oral charge approved in Barron v. State, 29 Ala.App. 137, 193 So. 190 (1940), and correctly applied it to the facts of this case, similar to Barron as to the particular issue of criminal responsibili......
-
Hubbard v. State
...at a loss to know why the appellant tendered this charge. Refused instruction No. 17 does not state the law correctly. Barron v. State, 29 Ala.App. 137, 193 So. 190. The case was tried by the able judge with great care and due caution. We find no reversible error in the record. The judgment......
-
Flanagan v. State
...of the disease with which the deceased was afflicted at the time of the violence. State v. Morea, 2 Ala. 275 (1841); Barron v. State, 29 Ala.App. 137, 193 So. 190 (1940). To render a defendant guilty, it is not necessary that the blow given by him, or his wrongful act, was the sole cause of......
-
Smith v. State
...is synchronous with, or (3) the other cause follows, commission of the felonious act charged. State v. Morea, 2 Ala. 275; Barron v. State, 29 Ala.App. 137, 193 So. 190; Harvey v. State, 15 Ala.App. 311, 73 So. 200, as to (1) Jordan v. State, 82 Ala. 1, 2 So. 460, as to (2) Ingram v. State, ......