Beard v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 815. |
| Citation | 95 So. 333,19 Ala.App. 102 |
| Parties | BEARD v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, DeKalb County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
John Beard, indicted for murder in the first degree, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Isbell & Scott, of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant and deceased were friends and neighbors, both were married and both were small farmers, each running a one-horse farm. They were in constant association and frequently exchanged work; the defendant using deceased's mule to make a team and vice versa. On the night of the homicide, deceased came to defendant's house and induced defendant to go with him some distance away, to return some hinges to an old house from which they had been formerly taken by deceased and about which there had been some talk in the community. Defendant wanted to wait and go in the daytime, but deceased insisted on going then. Defendant yielded and went with deceased as requested. Deceased took defendant's gun and carried it on the trip until they came to their destination, the hinges were replaced, and then they started to return; defendant carrying the gun, and deceased leading the way along a path through a wood. When they came to a point where a log was across the path and just after deceased had passed the log, the gun was discharged; the load entering deceased just below the shoulder blade, from which wound death resulted instantly. Defendant, who was the only eyewitness, testified that he stumbled, and that in some unaccountable way the gun was accidentally discharged. Defendant immediately went for help and notified the surrounding neighbors and the wife of deceased. There is nothing in the testimony to indicate that the actions of defendant after the homicide were other than those of an innocent normal man under similar circumstances. The evidence, without conflict, shows friendly and even intimate relations between the two men.
It is not every homicide that is criminal in its nature, and if this homicide occurred as the defendant says it did, the law has no punishment for it. The prosecution realizing this, and further realizing that without more no verdict of guilt would be allowed to stand, sought to show a motive on the part of defendant to take the life of deceased. To do this certain evidence was introduced seeking to show an undue intimacy between defendant and the wife of deceased. If this could be done, beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury might, considering all the other evidence, reach the conclusion, the killing being admitted, that the explanation was fabricated; for if, under the guise of friendship, the defendant had violated the sanctity of deceased's home and had seduced his wife, the motive would be apparent. Under this phase of the case, this evidence, relative to the relations existing between defendant and the wife of deceased, became of the highest importance and should be subjected to the closest scrutiny. In this connection, it may be observed, there is an expression in the testimony of state witness Blackwell, of extreme significance, when he said:
"I just wanted to tell him (referring to Mr. Green, the father of deceased) they have asked everybody in that country out there if they haven't seen John Beard at Arthur Green's house when he wasn't there."
It was competent to prove by the witness McDaniel that on one occasion he had seen defendant at the home of deceased while deceased was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. Mississippi
...Blackwell v. State, 76 Fla. 124, 79 So. 731, 735-736 (1918); People v. Johnson, 284 N.Y. 182, 30 N.E.2d 465 (1940); Beard v. State, 19 Ala.App. 102, 95 So. 333 (1923). See generally Annot., Prejudicial Effect of Statement of Prosecutor that if Jury Makes Mistake in Convicting It Can Be Corr......
-
Abu-Jamal v. Horn
...(1928); Hammond v. State, 156 Ga. 880, 120 S.E. 539 (1923); Blackwell v. State, 76 Fla. 124, 79 So. 731 (1918); Beard v. State, 19 Ala. App. 102, 95 So. 333 (Ala.Crim.App.1923). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not objectively unreasonable in determining Caldwell was inapplicable because ......
-
McGriff v. State
...State, 19 Ala.App. 187, 96 So. 182, cert. denied, Ex parte Thomas, 209 Ala. 289, 96 So. 184 (1923) ("a moral pervert"); Beard v. State, 19 Ala.App. 102, 95 So. 333 (1923) "References in closing argument to a defendant's character will not constitute reversible error if they are supported by......
-
Smith v. State
...19 Ala. App. 187, 96 So. 182, cert. denied, Ex parte Thomas, 209 Ala. 289, 96 So. 184 (1923) (`a moral pervert'); Beard v. State, 19 Ala.App. 102, 95 So. 333 (1923) References in closing argument to a defendant's character will not constitute reversible error if they are supported by the re......