Bush v. State
| Decision Date | 06 July 1910 |
| Citation | 168 Ala. 77,53 So. 266 |
| Parties | BUSH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Choctaw County; John T. Lackland, Judge.
Mollie Bush was convicted of murder, and she appeals. Affirmed.
Gavin & Hollis, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted for the murder of Roxie Wallace. The evidence tended to show that jealousy was the motive. The difficulty occurred at night, near a negro church, while services were going on. The evidence tended to show that the defendant was pursued and followed up the road from the church by the deceased and her sister; that when deceased overtook defendant she said, "Is that you, Mollie?" and defendant replied, "Is that you, Roxie?" and that they immediately began fighting, though it is not shown which started to the other first. When they were separated it was found that the deceased had been severely cut and mortally wounded with a knife, from which wounds she died in about 15 minutes. The defendant had a number of bruises and gashes on her face, was bleeding profusely, and one of her teeth was knocked out. No one saw any weapon on account of the darkness. The deceased had charged the defendant with undue intimacy with the husband of the former. It was shown that the deceased's husband had been very attentive to the defendant. It was shown that the defendant had left home prior to the killing, being absent four or five months, and that the husband of the deceased left about the same time that both went to Mobile; and that the defendant returned to the neighborhood of her former home just a few days before the difficulty. It was also shown that the deceased had threatened to whip the defendant and to leave the neighborhood.
The bill of exceptions recites that: "The defendant during the progress of the trial offered to explain by the testimony of the defendant herself why she left the neighborhood and went to Mobile, and why she returned." To the introduction of this evidence the state, by its solicitor, objected, and the court sustained the objection, to which ruling the defendant excepted. The defendant also offered to prove by one Tompkins that a certain weapon, an iron lard can handle, exhibited to him, was the same weapon the deceased got from him before the difficulty. The court declined to allow this evidence. The defendant then offered to introduce the weapon in evidence, to which the state objected. The court sustained the objection, and to this ruling the defendant excepted. We find no error in any of these rulings.
Jealousy having been shown to exist between the defendant and the deceased as to the latter's husband, the evidence that the defendant had gone to Mobile (to which place the deceased's husband had gone) was clearly admissible. While it would have been proper and relevant for the defendant to show by appropriate evidence the purpose of her visit to Mobile, and that of her return, the bill of exceptions does not inform us that she offered or attempted so to do by proper evidence. The court declined to allow her to testify as to her uncommunicated motive or intention in making the trip to Mobile, and that in returning home. She should have proven the facts connected with, and attending her visit and return, and have left it to the jury to infer the reason or object of these movements. The evidence of the lard can handle, as a weapon, was properly denied and excluded. It was not shown that this particular weapon was used by the deceased on the occasion of the fatal difficulty, nor was the time at which the witness had given it to the deceased shown to have been sufficiently near the time of the difficulty to leave it open to the jury to infer that the deceased carried it on the occasion of the difficulty. The defendant had a subp na issued to one Luther...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spencer v. State
...is guaranteed by the constitution, and neither the legislature nor the courts can deprive a defendant of that right. Bush v. State, 168 Ala. 77, 53 So. 266 (1910).”Ervin, 584 So.2d at 949. This Court concluded that the circuit clerk had failed to perform its affirmative duty under § 12–21–2......
-
Spencer v. State, No. CR-04-2570 (Ala. Crim. App. 4/4/2008), CR-04-2570.
...is guaranteed by the constitution, and neither the legislature nor the courts can deprive a defendant of that right. Bush v. State, 168 Ala. 77, 53 So. 266 (1910)." Ervin, 584 So. 2d at 949. This Court concluded that the circuit clerk had failed to perform its affirmative duty under § 12-21......
-
Williams v. State
...tended to shed some light on the relation that existed between deceased and defendant, and on the question of motive.' In Bush v. State, 168 Ala. 77, 53 So. 266, the State was permitted to show that the defendant, a woman, had followed the husband of deceased to another city prior to the ho......
-
Leverett v. State
...the defendant compulsory process for his witnesses, and neither the Legislature nor the courts can deprive him of that right. Bush v. State, 168 Ala. 77, 53 So. 266. And when witnesses are in attendance it would be a practice dangerous in its tendencies to permit a court to say that no furt......