Buckhanon v. State
| Decision Date | 02 February 1915 |
| Docket Number | 294 |
| Citation | 67 So. 718,12 Ala.App. 36 |
| Parties | BUCKHANON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Randolph County; S.L. Brewer, Judge.
George Buckhanon was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
W.L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant killed Saunt Ragsdale by shooting him with a gun in a cotton patch near the home of the deceased, and for this he was indicted for murder in the first degree, and was tried and convicted for manslaughter in the first degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of four years. The only questions presented for review here arise from the refusal of the court to give charges numbered 3, 12, 16, 17 18, 19, and 22.
The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that appellant, a few minutes before the killing, with gun in hand, passed through the yard of the deceased, making threats that he was going to the home of Mattie Philpotts and kill her, because of "something she had told on him, which he said was not true"; that while defendant was in the yard of deceased, he declared with an oath that he was going to kill "Mat Philpotts" and her husband, and started off through the field in the direction of their house, when the deceased followed him dissuading him from his declared purpose, and the defendant turned upon the deceased and causelessly shot him to death. On the part of the defendant there was some evidence tending to show that defendant stopped at the house of deceased and inquired for him, and found deceased at the barn, when defendant told deceased that he (defendant) was going hunting; that deceased cursed him, and followed him down into the field, abusing him, and cursing and threatening to kill him; that deceased assaulted defendant with a rock, and then engaged in a scuffle with the defendant over defendant's gun, and in the scuffle the gun was accidentally discharged while the deceased had hold of its muzzle, and thus the wound causing the death of deceased was inflicted.
The only difference between charge 3, refused by the court to defendant, and charge 4, given at his instance, is that charge 4 requires the probability of innocence that would justify an acquittal to arise out of the evidence, while charge 3 does not. The refusal of charge 3 can, therefore, be justified because it authorizes an acquittal on a probability of innocence not arising from the evidence or existing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newman v. State
... ... for that, "it justifies an acquittal on a probability of ... innocence, while it must be a reasonable probability of ... innocence arising involuntarily out of the evidence, or some ... part thereof, after a consideration of the whole by the ... jury." Buckhanon v. State, 12 Ala.App. 36, 67 ... So. 718; Hayes v. State, 21 Ala.App. 615, 110 So ... 696; Adams v. State, 21 Ala.App. 15, 105 So. 714, ... certiorari denied In re Adams, 213 Ala. 570, 105 So ... 715, 716; McClain v. State, 182 Ala. 67, 81, 62 So ... 241. In Edwards v. State, 205 ... ...
-
Barnett v. State
... ... Charge ... 24 was properly refused. "A reasonable doubt, not ... arising from the evidence, or not existing in the face of the ... whole evidence, is not a proper predicate for an ... acquittal." McClain v. State, 182 Ala. 67, 62 ... So. 241; Buckhanon v. State, 12 Ala.App. 36, 67 So ... 718; Collins v. State, 14 Ala.App. 54, 70 So. 995 ... Charge ... 50 predicates the defendant's right to an acquittal on ... the absence of the intent to have sexual intercourse with the ... prosecutrix by force. The defendant was subject to a ... ...
-
Fox v. State
...McClain Case predicated upon a part of the evidence, while the charge in the instant case has no such limitations. But in Buckhanon v. State, 12 Ala.App. 56, 67 So. 718, identical charge was held to be bad because it failed to qualify probability by the word reasonable, and in Davis v. Stat......
-
Arrington v. State
...The charge in the instant case meets every criticism condemning it, except the phrase in the Buckhanon Case, supra, and that part of the Buckhanon opinion was not based authority cited, and has never since been cited or alluded to. It is true that Mr. Justice Somerville, writing in the Edwa......