Bean v. State

• Decision Date: 21 June 1921
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 847.
• Citation: 18 Ala.App. 281,91 So. 499
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Parties: BEAN v. STATE.

91 So. 499

18 Ala.App. 281

BEAN v. STATE.

8 Div. 847.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 21, 1921

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W. W. Harralson, Judge.

John C Bean was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appealed. Affirmed.

Certiorari denied 91 So. 921.

Bouldin & Wimberly and John B. Tally, all of Scottsboro, and Estill &amp Crownover, of Winchester, Tenn., for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

The testimony for the state disclosed a state of facts which, if true, more than justified the verdict rendered by the jury and, in connection with these facts and as a part of them, it developed that the defendant had for more than 25 years been living in a state of open adultery and using the children of the adulterous intercourse, as they became old enough, in the illicit manufacture and sale of whisky. It further appears that the adulterous relation between the defendant and the mother of the children must have begun before the mother was 20 years of age. All of this evidence was brought out in connection with the homicide, to show the relations between the parties and in explanation of circumstances surrounding the killing. Comment upon this evidence by counsel, as it affected the guilt or innocence of the defendant, was legitimate, not that he should be convicted on the charge of murder, by reason of those facts, but in explanation of his acts, his motives, and the weight that the jury should give to his testimony. For this purpose the solicitor might state what the facts showed and draw inferences of guilt as charged, from the facts proven. But the defendant was not on trial for being a criminal all his life, or for raising a family of bastard children, or for seducing the girl, the mother of the bastards; nor was he on trial on a charge of illicit distilling or training his children to be wild-catters. The solicitor in his closing argument to the jury said:

"Gentlemen of the jury, you have before you an old criminal. He has been a criminal all his life and ought to be put up for the rest of his days. He has raised this family of bastard children and brought them up and trained them up and trained them to be wild-catters. He took that girl, their mother, and seduced her at 15 years of age."

The defendant was on trial charged with the killing of George Stephens, and it was the duty of the court and the solicitor to see that he was tried, and, if guilty, convicted of that offense and his punishment fixed, based upon that verdict uninfluenced, as far as possible, by incidental proof of other violations of law. Coming as it did, at the close of a long trial, in which many witnesses had testified for the state to facts and circumstances tending to impress the jury along the lines of the remarks of the solicitor and during the closing address of the solicitor to the jury, the remarks were subject to the objection interposed, and the court properly so ruled. The ruling of the court was clear and to the point raised. It is true the court in making the ruling also said "My recollection the only testimony is that he was convicted one time, that he has not been convicted several times," and the solicitor then said, "That is an inference I draw...