Carden v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1919 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 179 |
| Citation | 203 Ala. 173,82 So. 423 |
| Parties | CARDEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1919
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Harvey Carden was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
Charge 1, refused to the defendant, is as follows:
If the jury find from all the evidence that the deceased was a young and vigorous man, and that he assaulted the defendant, delivering hard blows and holding him by the throat, choking him in such a way that defendant could not release himself, and such blows and choking made it appear to a reasonable man that he, the defendant, was in imminent and manifest danger of death or grievous bodily harm, then the defendant would have the right to shoot and kill the deceased if the defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty.
While R.F. Ardis was testifying he began to tell of a statement made by the deceased after he was shot, and on objection by the defendant the court asked the witness what the deceased had said about dying, and the witness answered and said "Carden killed me, but he has not scared me." On further interrogatory the witness answered that the deceased said: " 'I am not afraid to die;' he never said anything about going to die; he just said, 'He killed me but has not scared me.' "
Milo Moody, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., and Horace Wilkinson, Asst. Atty. Gen for appellee.
Appellant (defendant) was indicted for the murder of one John Hall, and convicted of murder in the second degree--his punishment being fixed at 40 years in the penitentiary.
Defendant killed deceased by shooting him with a pistol--five shots being fired; all of them meeting their mark. The killing was not denied, but the defendant relied upon the doctrine of self-defense, in that the deceased was striking him with a knife with one hand and choking him with the other.
The testimony for the state tended to show the guilt of defendant as charged, and that two shots were fired at deceased after he had fallen to the ground; also that deceased had no knife or other weapon in his hand.
Only a few questions are presented for consideration by this record. The first relates to charge 1 refused to the defendant, which bears upon the doctrine of self-defense. If not otherwise faulty, we think the charge was properly refused as pretermitting the honest belief on the part of defendant as to any peril of life...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilbanks v. State
...(a) evidence 1 of the ages of defendant's children because, under the record, it tended to show his having been divorced, Carden v. State, 203 Ala. 173, 82 So. 423; Nelms v. Steiner Bros., 113 Ala. 562, 22 So. 435; 5 Vand.L.Rev. 388-389, 412; Rollings v. State, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329; Delo......
-
Evers v. State
...this evidence from the jury. Lumpkin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 273, 97 So. 171; Mosely v. State, 19 Ala. App. 335, 97 So. 247; Carden v. State, 203 Ala. 173, 82 So. 423. charge refused to defendant was properly refused. The charge as written was not applicable to this case as circumstantial ev......
-
White v. State
...the testimony appears competent under the authority of the following cases: Null v. State, 16 Ala.App. 542, 79 So. 678; Carden v. State, 203 Ala. 173, 82 So. 423; v. State, 85 So. 819. Furthermore, if there had been error in this connection, which there was not, such error was cured by the ......
- In re First Nat. Bank of Alexander City