Clayton v. State

• Decision Date: 04 December 1913
• Citation: 185 Ala. 13,64 So. 76
• Parties: CLAYTON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

64 So. 76

185 Ala. 13

CLAYTON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 4, 1913

Appeal from City Court of Mobile; O.J. Semmes, Judge.

Frank Clayton was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion. Charge 15 is as follows: "The court charges the jury that in a criminal case evidence of a defendant's previous difficulty is admissible for him, not only where a doubt exists on the other proof, but even to generate a doubt of the guilt of defendant."

C.W Tompkins, of Mobile, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

MAYFIELD J.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the killing of Alexander Marshall. The deceased was a hack, or cab, driver in the city of Mobile. The defendant, or some one for him, telephoned for a hack or cab. The deceased responded, and defendant entered the vehicle to be carried to his destination. The deceased remarked, "You understand the fare is 50 cents." The defendant answered, "No, they said over there that the price was 25 cents." From this a general quarrel and fight ensued, in which both parties used pistols, and the driver of the vehicle was killed and the defendant wounded. The evidence was in conflict as to who provoked the difficulty, and as to who first drew a pistol, and as to who fired the first shot.

The defendant's counsel objected to the state's witnesses' testifying that, at the time and place of the difficulty, one would have to step down from the sidewalk to get into the hack, and as to how far the hack was from the sidewalk, and objected also to the remarks of the court in this connection, made as a reply to counsel's objection to the evidence, "I think it is a fact if a man is on the sidewalk and the hack is in the street he would have to step down to get to his cab." There was no merit in any of these objections, and no possible injury did or could result from the overruling of the same.

There was likewise no merit in the objection to the state's proving the height of the cab on which the evidence tended to show the deceased had two pistols.

The trial court properly declined to allow the defense to prove statements made by him to the officers and others soon after the difficulty. Such statements were not parts of the res gestae but were merely self-serving declarations. There was however, no error in allowing the prosecution...