Bridges v. State

• Decision Date: 28 May 1896
• Parties: BRIDGES v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

20 So. 348

110 Ala. 15

BRIDGES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 28, 1896

Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; Samuel E. Greene Judge.

Jim Bridges was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant was indicted and tried for the murder of Arthur T Woods, and was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for life. The bill of exceptions recites that "after the jury had been selected and sworn and after one witness had been examined defendant's attorney in open court stated in open court that he wished to reserve an exception to the failure of the court to ask each juror on his voir dire the sixth cause of challenge under section 4331 of the Code: 'If he had any interest in the conviction of acquittal of defendant, or had made any promise or had given any assurance that he would convict or acquit the defendant.' The court had not asked any one of the persons this question."

The tendencies of the testimony for the state are sufficiently shown in the opinion. The testimony for the defendant tended to show that at the time the deceased was shot, he, the defendant, was at his own house, 100 yards from the place where the shooting occurred, and remained there until the shooting was over, and took no part in said shooting.

Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked. (1) "If the jury believe that Jim Bridges did not shoot Arthur T. Woods, then they must find him not guilty." (2) "The court charges the jury that if they believe all the evidence in this case, then they must find the defendant not guilty." (3) "If the jury do not believe from the evidence that Jim Bridges killed Arthur T. Woods with malice aforethought, then they must find him not guilty as charged in the indictment, but must find him guilty in a less degree, if guilty at all." (5) "The court charges the jury that in order to find the defendant guilty of murder in this case, they must believe from all the evidence that defendant not only shot and killed Arthur T. Woods, but also that he did so with malice aforethought." (6) "The court charges the jury that if they believe the testimony of the witnesses that swore that Jim Bridges was at his house at the time that Arthur T. Woods was killed, then you will find him not guilty."

Wm. C. Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

1. There was no error, if an exception had been properly raised which was not done in this instance, in the fact that the court did not ask each juror examined on his voir dire, "if he had any interest in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant, or had made any promise, or given any assurance that he would acquit or convict the defendant." This is one of the two causes for challenge not required to be proved by the oath of the party summoned as a juror, but which may be established "by other testimony only." Code, § 4332. But if the exception has been properly raised, the defendant does not appear to have proposed proof of the disqualification of any juror, at any time, but it does appear, that each juror was selected and sworn, before the question now suggested was raised, even, after which, it was not competent, from anything...