Chandler v. Goodson

• Decision Date: 19 October 1950
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 594
• Citation: 48 So.2d 223,254 Ala. 293
• Parties: CHANDLER v. GOODSON.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 223

48 So.2d 223

254 Ala. 293

CHANDLER v. GOODSON.

4 Div. 594.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 19, 1950.

E. O. Baldwin and A. R. Powell, Jr., of Andalusia, for appellant.

Jas. M. Prestwood, of Andalusia, for appellee.

The following charges were refused to defendant:

15. The Court charges the jury that if you are reasonably satisfied from all the evidence that the defendant was himself without fault, in bringing on the difficulty and had no reasonable mode of escape, reasonably apprehended death or great bodily harm to himself unless he cut the assaulted party, the cutting was justifiable and you should find for the defendant.

16. The Court charges the jury that the law is, in the case of self defense, a party is not required to know the real facts, but he may act upon a reasonable and well founded appearances and apprehensions, and, when a man exercises the right of self-defense, he is understood to act on the facts as they reasonably appear to him, and if without fault on his part, in bringing on the difficulty and had no reasonable mode of escape, he is misled concerning the facts and defends himself according to what he reasonably supposes the facts to be, he is justifiable, though in truth, the facts as they were reasonably supposed, did not exist, and in fact he had no occasion for the assault.

19. The Court charges the jury that it is not necessary that there should be actual danger of death or great bodily harm in order to have justified the assault, but if the jury are reasonably satisfied, from all the evidence in the case, that the circumstances attending the assault were such as to impress the defendant with a reasonable belief that at the time of the assault it was necessary in order to prevent death or great bodily harm to his person, then they must find for the defendant, unless the jury are further reasonably satisfied that the defendant was at fault in bringing on the difficulty, and had a reasonable mode of escape.

20. The Court charges the jury that if at the time of the assault the evidence shows an assault upon the defendant, under circumstances which would create a reasonable apprehension, that is, a just apprehension in the mind of a reasonable man of the design to commit a felony with force, or to inflict a personal injury which might result in loss of life or great bodily harm, the danger of the design being carried into execution being imminent and present, the person in whose mind such an apprehension is induced, and over whose person such danger is impending, may lawfully act upon appearances, even though the danger should not be real and the peril should not actually exist, provided you are reasonably satisfied from all the evidence that the defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty and that he had no reasonable mode of escape.

22. The Court charges the jury that the defendant had the same right to strike to prevent great bodily harm being done himself, as he had to prevent his life being taken. He may excusably use such force as may be necessary to repel any felonious attack, provided you are reasonably satisfied from all the evidence that he was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty and that he had no reasonable mode of escape.

E. The Court charges the jury that if the plaintiff in this case was guilty of misconduct which materially contributed to the injuries complained of, then you cannot return a verdict for the plaintiff.

BROWN, Justice.

This is an action of trespass by the appellee against the appellant, seeking to recover damages for wounds and injuries inflicted on appellee's person in an assault and battery committed by appellant on appellee.

The complaint consists of two counts. The first count avers that 'On to wit November 17, 1947, the defendant willfully, intentionally and violently cut plaintiff with a knife on the neck, arms and back and as a proximate result of said willful, intentional cutting plaintiff suffered great loss of blood and was permanently injured and because of said injuries plaintiff suffered great pain and mental anguish and was caused to spend large sums of money for doctor and medical bills.'

Count two avers that 'Plaintiff, Ralph Goodson, a minor suing by his next friend and father, J. W. Goodson, claims of the defendant the sum of $10,000.00 as damages for an assault and battery committed by the defendant on the plaintiff, viz., on the 17th day of November, 1947.'

Before pleading the defendant demurred to the complaint as a whole and to count one thereof. The grounds of demurrer are patently not well taken. The court did not err in overruling the same.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and special pleas some of which set up self defense, averring that plaintiff assaulted him and that he used no more force than necessary to repel the alleged assault on him by the plaintiff. A demurrer to the special pleas was overruled.

Before entering upon the trial of the case the plaintiff by leave of the court amended his complaint by alleging that he had 'reached the age of 21 years since the filing of this suit,' and by striking from each of said counts, 'a minor suing by his next friend and father, J. W. Goodson.'

The defendant had the burden of proving the substance of the issue presented by his special pleas. Alabama Great Southern R. Co. v. Frazier, 93 Ala. 45, 9 So. 303, 30 Am.St.Rep. 28; 2 Mayf.Dig. § 4, p. 211; Evans v. Walker, 237 Ala. 385, 187 So. 189.

The evidence shows without dispute that the difficulty between the plaintiff and the defendant in which the plaintiff was severely cut and stabbed with a knife took place on the public road leading toward Brantley, Alabama. Plaintiff was on his way to his uncle's residence which was located on a hill just ahead from 150 to 200 yards from the place of the difficulty. Johnny Butler, a cousin of the plaintiff, lived just off the road a short distance from the place where plaintiff stopped his car, on the righthand side of the highway. The defendant was going in the opposite direction toward Rose Hill on the road to Andalusia. Soon after the plaintiff stopped his automobile, defendant's automobile appeared on the hill and defendant drove up to the place where plaintiff's car was standing. The defendant's car reached this point about six o'clock and one phase of the evidence goes to show that as defendant drove up to the plaintiff's car he addressed him and said: 'Fellow, can't you dim your lights?' and plaintiff replied, 'I have my lights on dim' and showed him by putting the bright lights on and then back on dim. Defendant then said to the plaintiff, 'What are you doing in this part of the country anyway,' and plaintiff said, 'We came here to see Mr. Butler.' Then the defendant said, 'Mr. Johnny Butler lives here and Mr. Holley Butler lives up on the hill' and asked, 'What is your name?' Plaintiff replied 'Goodson.' Plaintiff then asked 'What's your name?' and defendant replied 'Chandler.' The plaintiff then cranked up and started to drive off and the defendant started laughing and plaintiff said, 'What's so funny?' and he said, 'Oh, nothing, get out.'

The plaintiff's evidence goes to show that he got out on the opposite side from where he was sitting at the steering wheel and defendant came around in front of his car and struck plaintiff and knocked or shoved him down on the right side of palintiff's car to the back and got astride plaintiff's prostrate form and inflicted several wounds with his knife on plaintiff's person.

There is no evidence that the plaintiff, a boy 19 years of age, was armed and he was in his own car with his wife and a man by the name of Morgan. This evidence warranted an inference which it was within the province of the jury to draw that the defendant became incensed at the plaintiff (the parties at that time being perfect strangers) because the defendant assumed plaintiff had not dimmed his lights when the defendant gave a signal as he came over the hill approaching the scene.

The defendant's evidence on the other hand goes to show that after he invited the plaintiff to get out of the car and he did get out, the defendant clinched with the plaintiff and cut him in several places on his person, inflicting serious wounds on plaintiff's person, which are illustrated by the testimony of Dr. Ray Evers, whose qualifications as an expert witness were not questioned, but were admitted in evidence by defendant's counsel, as follows:

'Mr. Powell: Let the record show that the defense admits the Doctor's qualifications.

'By Mr. Prestwood:

'Q. You are Dr. Ray Evers, A. I am.

'Q. You were a practicing physician in Covington County on November 17th, 1947? A. I was.

'Q. At that time did you know Ralph Goodson here? A. I did, yes sir.

'Q. Do you know where he was employed? A. Yes, I do.

'Q. Where was he employed? A. He was working for me at the Hillcrest Infirmary.

'Q. On the evening of November 17th, 1947 did you see Ralph Goodson? A. I did.

'Q. What was his condition at the time? A. He had received several severe wounds about the neck and body. He was in a critical condition and hemorrhaging quite badly.

'Q. Did he have on his clothes? A. He did, yes sir.

'Q. Did his clothes have blood on them? A. They were very bloody, yes sir.

'Q. Where did you first see him, at the Hillcrest Infirmary? A. I did, yes sir.

'Q. Did you send him to the operating room? A. I did.

'Q. Was he conscious at the time you saw him out there? A. He was, yes sir.

'Q. Doctor, if you will step down here and point out to the jury the different wounds that he had on him at that time. A. Start at the back here and all the way from here and this was cut in to his lung, this cut was deep enough that it went into the pleura, the lung tissue, all the way through the backbone and the knife hit the backbone and stopped and this was cut under this very deep and also a stab wound into the lung and also a cut wound here and here and over here and he was cut...