Coates v. State
| Decision Date | 21 January 1941 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 604. |
| Citation | 199 So. 830,29 Ala.App. 616 |
| Parties | COATES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
Sidney Coates was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Chauncey Sparks, of Eufaula, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Willard McCall, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
Appellant was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of fifteen years. It was shown, we may say without dispute, that he killed Jesse Evans by cutting him with a knife--which we know to be a deadly weapon.
As we said in the opinion in the case of Grays v. State, 28 Ala.App. 394, 185 So. 191, we repeat, here: "The evidence in this case is, without dispute, that the homicide was committed by the use of a deadly weapon; where such is the case, the proof of the use of a deadly weapon raises the presumption of malice, and throws upon the defendant the burden of repelling the presumption, unless the evidence which proves the killing shows, also, that it was done without malice."
Or, as the Supreme Court said in the case of Cooley v State, 233 Ala. 407, 171 So. 725, 727
The above quotations, especially the one from Cooley v. State, which controls us (Code 1923, Sec. 7318), seem conclusive of the principal question argued here by appellant's distinguished counsel as a reason for the reversal of the judgment of conviction.
It is true that defendant was the only eyewitness to the killing of deceased--at least after deceased's eyes were closed. And that his testimony made out a perfect case of self-defense. And that unless the testimony of defendant is given some degree of credibility the circumstances of the killing are wholly speculative. But the jury had the right to disbelieve his evidence. And the presumption which arose from the "intentional killing with a deadly weapon"--abundantly shown--was sufficient to support the verdict returned. Cooley v. State, supra.
We are not unimpressed with the forceful argument of appellant's counsel to the effect that the circumstances here are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kemp v. State
...Ala.App. 301, 15 So.2d 745; Moore v. State, 31 Ala.App. 483, 18 So.2d 803; Austin v. State, 30 Ala.App. 267, 4 So.2d 442; Coates v. State, 29 Ala.App. 616, 199 So. 830. As indicated above, the testimony on behalf of the State was that appellant admitted killing Martha Ann Dexter with a knif......
-
Williams v. State
...of life or serious bodily harm. This was in effect the holding in Cooley v. State, 233 Ala. 407, 171 So. 725. See also Coates v. State, 29 Ala.App. 616, 199 So. 830; Olive v. State, 8 Ala.App. 178, 63 So. 36; Denson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 554, 28 So.2d 174; Lewis v. State, 25 Ala.App. 188, 1......
-
Langley v. State
...to use--mutatis mutandis--as being in every respect applicable here, language which we used in our opinion in the case of Coates v. State, 29 Ala.App. 616, 199 So. 830, 'It was shown, we may say without dispute, that he killed Bob Leach by shooting him with a pistol--which we know to be a d......
-
Matthews v. State, 6 Div. 493
...in the manner in which it was used and the consequences which followed. Williams v. State, 251 Ala. 397, 39 So.2d 37; Coates v. State, 29 Ala.App. 616, 199 So. 830; Thomas v. State, 31 Ala.App. 1, 9 So.2d 150; Threatt v. State, 32 Ala.App. 416, 26 So.2d The principal witness against appella......