Cody v. State
| Decision Date | 04 August 1931 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 321. |
| Citation | 137 So. 318,24 Ala.App. 499 |
| Parties | CODY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 6, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Alfred Earl Cody was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Cody v. State (8 Div 350) 137 So. 319.
J. A Lusk, of Guntersville, for appellant.
Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appellant admittedly killed Dewey Colvin by shooting him with a pistol. The indictment charged him with the offense of murder in the second degree, and as an answer thereto he pleaded: (1) "Not guilty." (2) Not guilty by reason of insanity.
On this appeal the appellant has assigned errors, and in assignments 1, 2, and 3, complains of the action of the court in overruling his motion for a continuance, which motion was based upon the grounds that three witnesses who resided in other counties were absent. It appears from the record that these same three witnesses were absent at the preceding term of the court; that they had been regularly subp naed to attend, and that at the former term attachments were issued for each of them; that the attachments had not been served, etc. We have carefully read and considered all that was said and done in the court below in this connection, as shown by the record. There is a total lack of any statement or showing to the effect that the witnesses in question were material, and for this, and other apparent reasons, we hold there was no abuse of the court's discretion in overruling the motion for a continuance.
In support of assignments of errors 4 and 5, appellant cites the case of Fisher v. State, 23 Ala. App. 544, 129 So. 303. Thomas v. State, 18 Ala. App. 268, 90 So. 878. We are of the opinion that the case of Pollard v. State, 12 Ala. App. 82, 68 So. 494, 497, is more in point upon the question involved; and that the court did everything in its power to meet the objections interposed by defendant's counsel. Certainly there appears no abuse of the discretion with which the court was vested, for as said in Pollard v. State, supra: "Courts exist for the administration of justice, and in the conduct of trials in general much must, of necessity, and in the very nature of things, be left to the discretion of the court charged with the duty of administering justice, and having the inherent power to regulate such matters in the trial forum." For the reasons stated we cannot sustain the assignments here under discussion.
The sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth assignments of error are likewise without merit. Hyche v. State, 22 Ala. App. 176, 113 So. 644; Hyche v. State, 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906. No extended argument in this connection is necessary.
The ninth assignment of error is based on the refusal of the court to require state witness Dr. Isbell, during the trial to examine the defendant so as to enable him to express an opinion as to the insanity of the defendant. This also was a matter within the discretion of the court. Nothing appears to show an abuse of this discretion and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Henry
...the children of the deceased to be seated in the courtroom during the trial. Pollard v. State, 12 Ala.App. 82, 68 So. 494,Cody v. State, 24 Ala.App. 499, 137 So. 318. In matters of this kind arising in trials involving great human interest, trial judges should be careful to see that no extr......
-
Gast v. State
... ... and appointment of that commission was made, and not on the ... date of the trial. The statute was not mandatory, but merely ... discretionary. Oliver v. State (Ala.Sup.) 166 So ... 615; Rohn v. State, 186 Ala. 5, 65 So. 42; ... Granberry v. State, 184 Ala. 5, 63 So. 975; Cody ... v. State, 24 Ala.App. 499, 137 So. 318. Under the ... circumstances of the case, the trial court sought to comply ... with the discretionary provisions of the act of 1933, ... Gen.Acts 1933, pp. 144, 145 ... The ... defendant's motion for a continuance on the ground of an ... ...
-
Howard v. State
...of such discretion. Pollard v. State, 12 Ala.App. 82, 68 So. 494 (reversed on other grounds) 193 Ala. 32, 69 So. 425; Cody v. State, 24 Ala.App. 499, 137 So. 318; Swindle v. State, 27 Ala.App. 549, 176 So. Generally, it is not an abuse of the trial judge's discretion to deny a new trial in ......
-
Swindle v. State
... ... whole situation, and taking into consideration the subsequent ... verdict of the jury, we decline to review the action of the ... trial judge in permitting the children of the deceased to be ... seated in the courtroom during the trial. Pollard v ... State, 12 Ala.App. 82, 68 So. 494, Cody v ... State, 24 Ala.App. 499, 137 So. 318 ... In ... matters of this kind arising in trials involving great human ... interest, trial judges should be careful to see that no ... extraneous influences are injected into the proceedings, in ... such way and manner as to bring ... ...