Bigham v. State
Decision Date | 15 May 1919 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 875 |
Citation | 203 Ala. 162,82 So. 192 |
Parties | BIGHAM v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster Judge.
Dock Bigham was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
F.F Windham, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Horace Wilkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment fixed by the jury to suffer death. The homicide was committed by defendant at the place of operation of an illicit distillery. The deceased was the sheriff, and, at the time of his death, was of a posse of state and federal officials seeking to locate such plant and to arrest those who were operating it, one of whom was the defendant.
The due preliminary orders, of arraignment, for venire, and setting a day for defendant's trial are disclosed by the record; so also a proper verdict ascertaining defendant's guilt of murder in the first degree and fixing his punishment therefor, and judgment and sentence as required by law.
The several degrees of a felonious homicide and the required elements of self-defense--defendant's plea in justification of his act in killing deceased--were defined by the court in the oral charge (Hill v. State, 194 Ala. 11, 69 So. 941), and all of defendant's requested written charges were given. The jury, under the indictment charging murder in the first degree, ascertained by their verdict, and so declared, that the defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree and fixed his punishment at death. Code, § 7087; Howerton v. State, 191 Ala. 13, 67 So. 979.
We have examined the record, and considered all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions. Code, § 6264; Howerton v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, 81 So. 820; Hardley v. State, 79 So. 362.
On the trial several exceptions were reserved to the admission and rejection of evidence. It would subserve no good purpose to discuss exceptions which are patently without merit.
The state introduced as a witness one Robertson, who testified that he went in company with the deceased, Watts, and others to the place where the homicide occurred, and that he did not know defendant was one of the parties operating the still. He described the locus in quo, stating that he was instructed by Watts to pursue a man who was fleeing therefrom, and that in the pursuit he (witness) fired his gun two or three times; that after he fired, hearing "several shots down in the hollow to where the still was," he turned and went to Watts, and found him in a stooping position, "like a man sinking," or leaning over toward a little poplar tree; that when witness looked "up the hollow, I [he] saw a gun leveled" on him, which was fired, striking him in the shoulder. Witness further testified that later he repaired to the scene of the homicide, examined "the tree carefully and saw buckshot holes in it"; that he went to the still in the direction of where these buckshot holes were in the tree, and they were right in line with the still; that there were twigs and bushes between the still and the tree, and they were cut by bullets; that the twigs and bushes were on a direct line between the still furnace and the tree, between the top of the still furnace and the tree; that it was "the same tree Mr. Watts was hunkered up against." Brindley v. State, 193 Ala. 43, 45, 46, 69 So. 536, Ann.Cas.1916E, 177.
On cross-examination witness testified that he shot two or three times in the direction of the man coming across the field, and that at that instant he heard shooting "in the hollow," but could not say how many shots there were, stating his best judgment to be three or four shots; that the shooting was from a high-powered gun with a bigger explosion than a pistol. Counsel for defendant propounded to witness the question, "Didn't you have a conversation, shortly after this occurrence with Mr. Henry King and detail to him what took place and the number of shots that were fired, and so forth, and didn't you tell him the same thing?" The witness replied that he did not remember talking with Mr. King, "unless you could refer me"; would not say that he did not have such a conversation; supposed that he had talked with the party, but didn't remember any time. Witness was then asked, "In that conversation you say you had with him did you detail to him or outline what happened?" and answered, "Could not say; I may have had a talk with Mr. King shortly after this happened, but don't remember, and don't remember detailing what happened or the number of shots fired." The foregoing was without objection. Counsel for defendant thereupon asked the witness, "Did you, in the city of Tuscaloosa, shortly after this occurrence up there in which Mr. Watts was killed, have a conversation on the afternoon of the day that Mr. Watts was killed, or shortly thereafter, did you have a conversation with Mr. Henry King detailing to him the number of shots that were fired?" The solicitor objected to the question on the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial; that the predicate was not in proper form; and that the same question had already been propounded to the witness and answered by him. The court stated that substantially the same question had been asked and answered; that this was all right as a preliminary question, but not in proper form for predicate upon which to contradict witness; that, if it was asked merely as a preliminary question, it was permissible, but, if it was intended as the predicate upon which to contradict witness, it was not in proper form. To this ruling the defendant then and there duly and legally excepted.
The liability of a witness to be contradicted may not be avoided merely because he says he does not remember the statements about which he is interrogated or that he "does not remember whether he said so or not." Payne v. State, 60 Ala. 80; Brown v. State, 79 Ala. 61; Henson v. State, 120 Ala. 316, 25 So. 23; Crowley v. Page, Car. & P., 789, 791. In order to impeach a witness by proving his contradictory statements, a proper predicate is required. In People's Shoe Co. v. Skally, 196 Ala. 349, 355, 71 So. 719, 721, Mr. Justice Mayfield said:
In effect, this is the rule long obtaining in English and American courts, and announced by Baron Parke in Crowley v. Page, supra; 2 Phillips on Ev. (3d Ed.) c. 9, § 3, pp. 434, 435. The text to 1 Greenleaf on Evidence (16th Ed.) § 462, is:
On the authority of Southern Railway Co. v. Williams, 113 Ala. 620, 21 So. 328, the author further says:
The predicate sought to be laid for impeachment of Robertson by Mr. Henry King did not comply with the rule, since by reference to the examination of the witness, it was not clear that he was not being taken by surprise, for the witness said to the interrogator, "I don't remember, unless you could refer me." The patent defect of the predicate however, was that it failed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gast v. State
...... turpitude, or that he has made contradictory statements, or. that he is a person of bad character. Thompson v. State, 100. Ala. 70, 14 So. 878." Orr v. State, 225 Ala. 642, 144 So. 867; Mobile & O.R. Co. v. Watson, 221. Ala. 585, 130 So. 199; Bigham v. State, 203 Ala. 162, 82 So. 192. . . A. defendant making himself a witness may be impeached by. evidence of general bad moral character or reputation, such. as applies to any other witness. State v. Scott, 332. Mo. 255, 58 S.W.2d 275, 90 A.L.R. 870, and authorities;. Ward v. ......
-
Sparks v. State, 6 Div. 572
...... Our case of Bigham v. State, 203 Ala. 162, 82 So. 192, is in accord with the holding in Lewis v. Post & Main, supra. We hold, therefore, that the Court of Appeals was correct in holding in effect that on the cross-examination of a witness as to statements made out of court contrary [261 Ala. 8] to the ......
-
Phillips v. State
...... establish the truth of the confession (Hall v. State, supra;. Flanigan v. State, supra; Avinger v. State, 29. Ala.App. 161, 195 So. 279, certiorari denied, 239 Ala. 291,. 195 So. 281; Smith v. State, 247 Ala. 354, 24 So.2d. 546), also as proof of flight. Bigham v. State, 203. Ala. 162, 82 So. 192. According to the confession of. appellant, he left the shoes which he wore at the time of the. homicide at a shoe shop in Attalla. The testimony of the. proprietor of the shoe shop corroborating this phase of the. confession was likewise admissible. . ......
-
Morris v. Corona Coal Co.
......Code 1923, § 9509;. Callaway v. Gay, 145 Ala. 524, 39 So. 277;. Barney Coal Co. v. Hyche, 197 Ala. 228, 72 So. 433;. Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Louis. Pizitz D.G. Co. v. Cusimano, 206 Ala. 689, 91 So. 779. . . The. cross-examination of plaintiff as a ... complied with on the trial. Standard Motor Co. v. McMahon, 203 Ala. 158, 82 So. 188; Bigham v. State, 203 Ala. 162, 165, 82 So. 192; McCoy v. Watson, 51 Ala. 466. . . (3) The. writer is of opinion that the cross-examination ......