Coffey v. State
| Decision Date | 16 March 1943 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 296. |
| Citation | 31 Ala.App. 120,12 So.2d 863 |
| Parties | COFFEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 6, 1943.
Proctor & Snodgrass, of Scottsboro, for appellant.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is a companion case of Henry Lester Coffey v. State, now in the Supreme Court on appeal See 14 So.2d 122.
John Coffey, this appellant, and his brother, the said Henry Lester Coffey, were tried at the same term of the Madison Circuit Court, in separate trials on separate indictments for the murder of Dr. James E. Walker, of Huntsville. On their respective trials, both defendants were found guilty. The verdict against Henry Lester Coffey was for murder in the first degree, with punishment of death. In the case at bar, this appellant, John Coffey, was adjudged guilty of murder in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at twelve years' imprisonment in the penitentiary.
It was Henry Lester Coffey who killed Dr. Walker, by shooting him with a pistol. Only one shot was fired, and this in the absence of appellant.
The State claimed that John Coffey was also guilty on the assumption that he was a conspirator with or an accomplice of his brother in the homicide. We say assumption because, so far as the record discloses, such a conclusion, we think, must rest upon assumption, conjecture, or suspicion only.
We have carefully read the entire evidence, sitting en banc, and have studiously considered the whole case. In our view, there was an entire absence of substantial evidence to justify the verdict of guilt. We are strongly impressed, from a strict scrutiny of the record, that this appellant was merely a victim of circumstances, because perhaps, a brother of the doctor's assailant. The evidence is entirely unconvincing that John Coffey knew of his brother's intention or preparation to do the victim bodily harm-if such was the case-or that he was acting in preconcert with his brother or that he was in any way aiding or abetting him in the homicide, or was present for such purpose. Therefore, we do not think the conviction should be allowed to stand on the evidence adduced.
We realize our stern responsibility in this and every case when it becomes necessary to review the jury's findings upon the sufficiency of the evidence, meanwhile not unmindful of the favorable presumption attending the correctness of such findings.
Nevertheless as observed in Anderson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 364, 6 So.2d 29: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bland v. State of Alabama
...Washington, 1963, 372 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 774, 9 L.Ed.2d 899. 10 Taylor v. Alabama, 1941, 30 Ala.App. 316, 5 So.2d 117; Coffey v. State, 1943, 31 Ala.App. 120, 12 So.2d 863; Lassiter v. State, 1955, 38 Ala.App. 287, 83 So.2d 365; Colvin v. State, 1957, 39 Ala. App. 355, 102 So.2d 911; Owens ......
-
South Cent. Bell Telephone Co. v. Olsen
...669 S.W.2d 649 ... SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, ... Martha B. OLSEN, Commissioner of Revenue, State of ... Tennessee, Defendant-Appellee ... 669 S.W.2d 649 ... Supreme Court of Tennessee, ... at Nashville ... April 23, 1984 ... ...
- Montgomery Production Credit Ass'n v. M. Hohenberg & Co.
-
Graves v. State
...only if, we are convinced that the verdict is wrong and unjust. Taylor v. State, 30 Ala.App. 316, 5 So.2d 117 (1942); Coffey v. State, 31 Ala.App. 120, 12 So.2d 863 (1943); Barker v. State, 55 Ala.App. 332, 315 So.2d 129 (1975) cert. denied, 294 Ala. 752, 315 So.2d 130; Smith v. State, Ala.......