Brown v. State

Decision Date21 January 1936
Docket Number6 Div. 854
Citation27 Ala.App. 32,165 So. 405
PartiesBROWN v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.Q. Smith, Judge.

Sam Brown was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Morel Montgomery, of Birmingham, for appellant.

A.A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and George Lewis Bailes, Sol., and Robt. G. Tate, Deputy Sol., both of Birmingham, for the State.

RICE Judge.

Appellant was tried under an indictment charging murder in the first degree, for the killing of Denison Ledyard. The means by which the deceased was killed is charged by the first count to have been by "kicking him," and by the second "by means unknown to the grand jury." The verdict was for manslaughter in the first degree, fixing the punishment at five years in the penitentiary.

This record discloses a murder which, for stark brutality, is scarcely to be exceeded in the grim annals of crime. Aside from a multiplicity of contusions and abrasions about the arms and limbs and other parts of the deceased's body below, his face and head were revoltingly bruised and mutilated. Both eyes were closed, a collection of blood under the scalp extended down into the neck, and the skull was fractured almost across the forehead. Death, attributed to this fracture and a cerebral hemorrhage, occurred some thirty-six hours after the infliction of the injuries.

Ledyard the deceased, was placed under arrest by a police officer. Just where the arrest was made is not certain, but apparently on a public street in the city of Birmingham. He was docketed at the city jail, at 3:45 in the afternoon, on a charge of drunkenness, and was lodged in what is termed as the "drunk cell." His condition with respect to the extent of intoxication is not made to appear. The officers testified merely that he was intoxicated, or had been drinking. There is nothing in the evidence which would refute the charge that he was, on the particular occasion, intoxicated in some degree, except for a bare inference afforded by the testimony of his mother to the effect that her son (at the time of his death almost forty years of age) had in youth suffered spinal meningitis which had left him "quite unsteady on his feet." However this may be, Ledyard was locked in the "drunk cell" of the prison with two other men charged with intoxication. Some two hours later the patrol arrived with two more prisoners, both drunk. These were Sam Brown (appellant) and Tom Cooper. Both were locked in the "drunk cell," making a total of five, in a room some twelve or fourteen feet wide by twenty feet long (the floor and walls of which were cement), and equipped with concrete benches made onto and running along the walls. Brown and Cooper were picked up separately. Both it seems had been in fights, if not at the time of, then shortly prior to their arrest. But it appears fairly certain that the five prisoners were total strangers to one another.

Within the space of one hour or less the assistant warden on duty in the office--McNeel by name--was notified that a fight was going on in the "drunk cell." This word was brought by the "key boy," a negro "trusty." McNeel testified that upon reaching the scene of the shambles he found Ledyard lying on the floor, with defendant, Brown on his knees and bending over with his hands on Ledyard. Otherwise the fight was over. At this time there were in the cell only four prisoners--Ledyard, Brown, Cooper, and one Bradley--the fifth having been released before the fight started. McNeel testified further that Brown, upon being then asked what the matter was, stated that "they jumped on him and he beat hell out of both of them." Officer Wilson, superintendent of the city jail, testified that Brown had made a similar statement to him.

Of the four persons shown to have participated in or been present at the fight, only two testified, Tom Cooper testifying as a witness for the state, and the defendant, Brown, testifying in his own behalf. Ledyard was dead, and Bradley is not shown to have testified. Cooper testified that soon after he and Brown were placed in the "drunk cell" the latter got up from where he was sitting and, without provocation or warning, struck witness in the face after which he proceeded to where Ledyard was lying on the floor and kicked him several times in the face with the heel or side of his shoe; that Ledyard tried to get up whereupon defendant kicked him again; kicked his head straight down on the floor--what witness would call "stomping." He further testified that defendant, after thus kicking deceased several times, again attacked the witness, knocking his head against the wall; that a wound in his scalp resulting from this, and a bruise in the eye inflicted when defendant struck him were the only injuries witness sustained in the melee; and that his other injuries--a broken wrist and injured knee cap--had already been received by him, as the result of a fall, when he was arrested.

Defendant Brown, testified that Cooper was the aggressor in the fight; that when the two were en route to jail in the police patrol Cooper had tried to start a fight with him, and soon after they were placed in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Cassell v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 29, 1975
    ...of this the oral charge is not properly presented to this Court for review. Meadows v. State, 182 Ala. 51, 62 So. 737; Brown v. State, 27 Ala.App. 32, 165 So. 405; Volume 6A, Criminal Law, k Moreover, the alleged exception was to the trial court's reading from Title 22, Sections 258(30) and......
  • Sparks v. State, 6 Div. 572
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1953
    ...the inquiry if other parties were present. The court did not err in sustaining the State's objection to the question. Brown v. State, 27 Ala.App. 32, 165 So. 405; Nichols v. State, 27 Ala.App. 435, 173 So. The 'predicate' to which the Court of Appeals referred is evidently that to be laid f......
  • Sparks v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • March 3, 1953
    ...the inquiry if other parties were present. The court did not err in sustaining the State's objection to the question. Brown v. State, 27 Ala.App. 32, 165 So. 405; Nichols v. State, 27 Ala.App. 435, 173 So. The appellant having testified in his own behalf, his credibility was subject to impe......
  • May v. State, 8 Div. 749
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 1950
    ...concern. Couch et al. v. Hutcherson, 243 Ala. 47, 8 So.2d 580, 141 A.L.R. 697; Green v. State, 233 Ala. 349, 171 So. 643; Brown v. State, 27 Ala.App. 32, 165 So. 405; Nichols v. State, 27 Ala.App. 435, 173 So. 652; King v. State, 24 Ala.App. 267, 134 So. 133; Vaughn v. State, 236 Ala. 442, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT