Buffalow v. State

• Decision Date: 23 May 1929
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 412.
• Citation: 219 Ala. 407,122 So. 633
• Parties: BUFFALOW v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

122 So. 633

219 Ala. 407

BUFFALOW v. STATE.

4 Div. 412.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 23, 1929

Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; H. A. Pearce, Judge.

Leland alias Lee, Buffalow, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W. O Mulkey and E. C. Boswell, both of Geneva, for appellant.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and J. W. Brassell, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

BROWN J.

The evidence shows without dispute that the appellant killed Harvey Blaylock by shooting him with a pistol on December 24, 1927. Appellant sought to justify his act under the doctrine of self-defense, and offered evidence tending to show that Blaylock was the aggressor, and on the day of the fatal rencontre, and previous thereto, had threatened to whip and kill the defendant.

The evidence further tended to show that because of a previous difficulty between the parties occurring in the fall of 1926, bad blood existed between the appellant and the deceased, and, in addition to the fact of such previous difficulty and the subsequent threats made by the deceased, appellant offered to show by the witness Cliff Dean that witness was present at the time and place of the previous difficulty; that the deceased was armed with a gun and made a hostile demonstration by pointing the gun at the defendant. The court on the objection of the solicitor rejected this testimony, apparently on the theory that this was going into the particulars of the previous difficulty. In this ruling we are of opinion that the Court fell into error.

In Gray v. State, 63 Ala. 66, to quote from the statement of facts: "The state introduced Spencer Brooks as a witness, who testified, that Matt Gray, the defendant, had been concerned in an assault on him with a knife, whereby he was severely cut in the neck, a short time before the assault charged in the indictment."

Chief Justice Stone, speaking for the court in answer to the contention that this was going into the particulars, observed: "The prisoner was indicted for an assault with intent to murder Spencer Brooks, which, under our statute, is made a felony. In a trial under such indictment, the intent with which the alleged act was done becomes a material inquiry. As in case of the kindred though higher crime of murder, formed design, coupled with the attempted use of means capable of producing the result aimed at, makes the offense complete, although in this lesser offense no actual battery or injury is inflicted. Hence, any testimony tending to prove malice aforethought, ill will previously formed, ancient grudge, or any other probable motive for the act, is admissible, as shedding light on the question of intent, or incentive of the crime. And, under this head, it is permissible to prove previous threats, previous altercations, or prior combats, although such proof may establish the commission of another and substantive offense, for which a separate indictment would lie. Such proof is received, not as constituting any part of the crime for which the prisoner is being tried; its object and scope are to show the relations of the parties, and to aid the jury in determining whether there was the formed design, or felonious intent to commit the crime of murder. Cherished hate, or ill will, is one of the incentives to murder. But, it is the fact of such previous altercation or combat, and not the particulars or merits of the quarrel, that can be put in evidence. *** Under this unquestioned principle, all the evidence objected to was clearly admissible. And it is not shown that any of the details or particulars of the former rencontre, or altercation, were put in evidence. Hence, no field is shown for the operation of the rule, that the fact only, and not the particulars, of a former quarrel, can be given in evidence." (Italics supplied.)

In a later case, McAnally v. State, 74 Ala. 17, a trial under an indictment for murder, the same learned jurist speaking for the court, observed: "The proof in reference to a previous difficulty was only admissible as tending to show malice, or a motive for doing the deed." And this as we take it, was whether the motive was to avoid serious bodily harm or death, or to kill with malice aforethought. "In such case, it is the fact of such difficulty, and its gravity, or the...