Beason v. State
| Citation | 59 So. 712,5 Ala.App. 103 |
| Parties | BEASON v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1912 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; J. E. Blackwood, Judge.
Charles W. Beason was convicted of assault and battery, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
The oral charge of the court referred to was that if the jury failed to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter in the first degree, yet if they believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, before the finding of the indictment, stamped his wife with his foot or feet, they were authorized under the evidence in this case to find the defendant guilty of assault and battery. The other charges appear in the opinion.
John W Inzer, of Ashville, and Thomas B. Russell, of Oneonta, for appellant.
R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
DE GRAFFENRIED, J.
In this case there was evidence tending to show that the defendant within 12 months before the finding of the indictment committed an assault and battery upon the person of his wife by stamping her with his foot or feet. The wife died within less than 12 months after the assault. The state claimed that her death was caused from the injuries received by her when she was assaulted by the defendant as above stated. The jury convicted the defendant of an assault and battery, and from the judgment of the court pronounced upon the verdict the defendant appeals.
1. Section 7315 of the present Code, which was section 5306 of the Code of 1896, referred to by Mr. Justice Sharpe in the opinion in the case of Thomas v. State, 125 Ala. 45 27 So. 920, provides that, when an indictment charges an offense of which there are different degrees, the jury may find the defendant not guilty of the degree charged, and guilty of any degree inferior thereto, or of an attempt to commit the offense charged; and the defendant may also be found guilty of any offense which is necessarily included in that with which he is charged, whether it be a felony or a misdemeanor.
In this case the defendant was charged with manslaughter, in that he intentionally, but without malice, killed his wife by stamping her with his foot or feet. It is manifest that the offense of an assault and battery upon the person of the wife by the defendant by stamping her with his foot or feet is included in this charge of manslaughter. Thomas v. State supra; Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378. If, therefore, the defendant committed an assault and battery upon the person of his wife, by stamping her with his foot or feet, at the time he is alleged to have killed her, he may lawfully be convicted of such assault and battery under the indictment in this case. Thomas v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelly v. Ala. Dep't of Corr.
...offense of manslaughter, the dissent relies on Coleman v. State, 344 So.2d 1249, 1250 (Ala.Crim.App.1977), and Beason v. State, 5 Ala.App. 103, 105, 59 So. 712, 712 (1912). In Coleman, a case involving the “possession of prohibited narcotics,” this Court stated that the “[c]harge of murder ......
-
Duncan v. State
... ... e ... heart failure, with the blow in no way contributing to or ... accelerating it, then, under the indictment, there was no ... homicide, and at most (if the blow were wrongful) defendant ... would only be guilty of some degree of assault. Beason v ... State, 5 Ala. App. 103, 59 So. 712; Keel v ... State, 29 Ala.App. 191, 194 So. 416; Code 1940, Title ... 15, § 323. If there was found in the evidence support for ... such a theory, "it matters not how slight the tendency ... of evidence may be towards establishing [such] fact * * * ... ...
-
Sullivan v. State
...State of Arizona v. Hanks, 1941, 58 Ariz. 77, 118 P.2d 71; Davis v. State, 1944, 31 Ala.App. 508, 19 So.2d 356, 357; Beason v. State, 1912, 5 Ala.App. 103, 59 So. 712; Watson v. State, 1902, 116 Ga. 607, 43 S.E. 32, 34, 35, 21 L.R.A.,N.S., 1; State v. McCall, 1954, 245 Iowa 991, 63 N.W.2d 8......
-
Moore v. State, 7 Div. 137
...and this lesser offense should have been submitted to the jury. See also, Thomas v. State, 125 Ala. 45, 27 So. 920; Beason v. State, 5 Ala.App. 103, 59 So. 712; McWilliams v. State, 12 Ala.App. 92, 67 So. We are forced to the conclusion that the evidence in the instant case compelled the su......