Briley v. State
| Decision Date | 08 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 620 |
| Citation | 21 Ala.App. 473,109 So. 845 |
| Parties | BRILEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 29, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
Ernest S. Briley was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W.H Morrow, of West Point, Ga., and Denson & Denson, of Opelika for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The defendant, on cross-examination of the witness Moore, asked several questions with reference to whether defendant was drinking or drunk at the time he was arrested on the charge for which he is here prosecuted. The state's objections to these questions were sustained, and this action of the court is urged as error. Whatever the rule may be regarding the defendant's condition mentally at the time of a homicide, as bearing upon the question of malice, the fact that he was drinking or drunk 24 hours after the homicide, without evidence showing continuation back to the time of the act, is not a part of the res gestae, and is inadmissible in evidence. All the authorities agree as to this.
After the defendant had shot the deceased, and she had fallen, and he had ordered four men there present to throw her into the well, from which she was subsequently taken, defendant went to his "shack," called the four men to him, and gave them $3 each. At that time a proper predicate having been laid, the state was permitted to prove that there, and in the presence of defendant, one of the men said: "You all know what this is for, why this here is for us not to say nothing about it." This was an incriminating statement made in the presence of defendant demanding a denial, and as such was admissible.
Letters No. 1, No. 2, and No. 9, shown and admitted to have been written by defendant to Vera, the party jointly charged with him in this indictment, at the time defendant was in jail charged with the murder of deceased, evidenced an attempt to suppress testimony, and were admissible in evidence.
It was immaterial to any issue as to where Vera Hargett's tent was located or as to where she slept, and the court was in error in permitting the solicitor to ask the questions, bringing out these facts, but the answers rendered the errors harmless.
The defendant requested the trial judge to give many written charges relating to drunkenness reducing a homicide from murder to manslaughter. These charges the court refused. As to those charges which require a reduction to manslaughter in the second degree, we may dispose of by citing the case of Cagle. v. State, 211 Ala. 346, 100 So. 318 where it is said on authorities there cited:
"Drunkenness may reduce the degree of the homicide from murder to manslaughter, but it is no defense as to either degree of manslaughter."
The cases of Heninburg v. State, 151 Ala. 26, 43 So 959, and Hill v. State, 9 Ala.App. 7, 64 So. 163, decided on authority of the Heninburg Case, are both expressly and correctly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nagem v. City of Phenix City
...12 So.2d 106 (1943) (1 1/2 hours); Phillips v. State, 25 Ala.App. 286, 287, 145 So. 169 (1932) ("some time"). See also Briley v. State, 21 Ala.App. 473, 109 So. 845 (1926) (the fact that the accused was drunk or drinking 24 hours after the homicide, "without evidence showing continuation ba......
-
Morris v. State
... ... consciousness of guilty connection with this homicide, nor ... any act tending to prove a consciousness of guilt in the ... absence of which the foregoing evidence was erroneously ... admitted. Montgomery v. State, 17 Ala. App. 469, 86 ... So. 132; Briley v. State, 21 Ala. App. 473, 109 So ... 845. If the subsequent acts and declarations of a defendant ... tend to connect him with the crime, they are admissible, but, ... in order to be admissible, such subsequent acts and ... declarations must tend to prove guilt or facts from which ... guilt ... ...
-
Maddox v. State, 6 Div. 18.
...88 Ala. 100, 7 So. 154; Rhodes v. State, 3 Ala.App. 182, 57 So. 1021; Williams v. State, 13 Ala.App. 133, 69 So. 376; Briley v. State, 21 Ala.App. 473, 109 So. 845; Harmon v. State, 23 Ala.App. 468, 126 So. In the instant case the testimony on the issue of the degree of intoxication of the ......
-
Barber v. State
...App.) 126 So. 420; Melton v. State, 21 Ala. App. 419, 109 So. 114; Whitfield v. State, 21 Ala. App. 490, 109 So. 524; Briley v. State, 21 Ala. App. 473, 109 So. 845; 215 Ala. 106, 109 So. 846; Jones v. State, 22 Ala. App. 141, 113 So. 478. By the second proposition it is insisted "a mistria......