Bush v. State, 7 Div. 546.
| Decision Date | 18 March 1930 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 546. |
| Citation | 127 So. 909,23 Ala.App. 502 |
| Parties | BUSH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 22, 1930.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; O. A. Steele, Judge.
Millard Bush was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
L. B Rainey, of Gadsden, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Mervin T. Koonce, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
In a fight between the defendant and Charlie Jackson, a noncombatant negro youth, eight or ten years old, was killed. There were three of the Jackson brothers present, Charlie Leonard and Henry. The boy, Calvin Jackson, was a nephew of the Jackson men, the son of their sister. While from the evidence before us, Charlie Jackson was the only active participant in the fight, there is some testimony showing animosity of the defendant toward both Charlie and Leonard if not the rest of the family. Suffice it to to say that there was evidence before the jury, which, if believed by them, authorized a finding that defendant, while shooting at one of the Jacksons or into the crowd, accidentally killed the child.
There was a conflict in the evidence as to which of the combatants was the aggressor, and as to whether defendant fired in self-defense. There was no occasion for the affirmative charge; the question was for the jury.
If the defendant unlawfully, unjustifiably, shot at either one or the other of the Jackson men, and, missing him, struck the boy, he would be guilty of the same degree of criminal homicide as if he had killed the object of his aim. Or, if in shooting he was acting in self-defense, as defined by the court in its instruction, and accidentally killed the boy, he would be guilty of no crime.
This was the effect of the oral charge in the particular to which exception was reserved. This exception is without merit.
The exceptions reserved on the admission of evidence present no questions worthy of separate consideration. We have given careful attention to each noted exception without finding error of a reversible nature.
Several charges requested by the defendant were refused by the court. The verdict was manslaughter in the second degree; hence charges 5, 8, and 10, dealing alone with murder need not be considered.
Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 9, so far as they state correct propositions of law, are covered by the oral charge.
Refused charge 11 is covered by given charge 7.
Refused charge 12 is as follows: 12. "The Court charges the jury that the indictment in this case is not any evidence in the case, and the fact that the defendant has been indicted is not to be considered by you as a circumstance against him but said indictment is merely a method of placing the defendant on his trial, but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gettings v. State
...29 So.2d 677 32 Ala.App. 644 GETTINGS v. STATE. 6 Div. 328.Alabama Court of AppealsJanuary 28, 1947 ... Rehearing ... 642, 159 So. 62; Lewis v. State, 22 Ala.App ... 108, 113 So. 88; Bush v. State, 23 Ala.App. 502, 127 ... Appellant ... had full ... Charges numbered 7, 15, 18, and 26 were substantially and ... fairly covered by the oral ... ...
-
Woodard v. State
...146 Ala. 66, 41 So. 274; Pelham v. State, 24 Ala.App. 330, 134 So. 888, certiorari denied, 223 Ala. 155, 134 So. 890; Bush v. State, 23 Ala.App. 502, 127 So. 909. Moreover, the principle sought to be established by this charge and by refused charges 55 and 56 was substantially and fairly co......
-
Jackson v. State
...the jury instructed as to the presumption of innocence attending him upon trial. Such was the treatment of the charge in Bush v. State, 23 Ala.App. 502, 127 So. 909, 910, reference being made to the Salter case, supra. The court held that the law as to presumption of innocence having been a......
-
Norton v. Bumpus
...127 So. 907 221 Ala. 167 NORTON v. BUMPUS. 8 Div. 174.Supreme Court of AlabamaApril 17, 1930 ... ...