Colvin v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 1954 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 610 |
| Citation | 260 Ala. 338,70 So.2d 654 |
| Parties | COLVIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for petition.
Beddow & Jones and G. Ernest Jones, Jr., Birmingham, and Skidmore & Finnell, Tuscaloosa, opposed.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction in the circuit court on two grounds. We shall first consider the opinion of the Court of Appeals in connection with the examination of the defendant's witness Bob Calhoun. It appears that Calhoun had come to the apartment shared by Colvin and the deceased about ten o'clock on the Sunday morning of the homicide. There he informed Colvin that the deceased had wrecked the U-Drive-It automobile and was lying under a nearby house. With some degree of reluctance at Calhoun's request, Colvin consented to go with Calhoun to try to get deceased away before the arrival of the police. During the cross-examination of Calhoun the state was allowed to show that just before Colvin left the apartment to go to the scene of the wrecked U-Drive-It, he put a gun in his pocket. This was the gun with which Colvin later shot the deceased.
On redirect examination of the witness Calhoun, Colvin undertook to show that at the time he put the pistol in his pocket at his apartment, he made the statement that Veazey had looked for that pistol the night before and told him he would have killed him with it if he had found the pistol and he was putting the pistol in his pocket because if Veazey came in he might get it and kill him. On objection made by the State, the trial court would not allow proof of the alleged statement made by Colvin. The Court of Appeals acted correctly in holding that the trial court erred in sustaining objection to the testimony sought to be introduced by Colvin to explain his purpose in putting his pistol in his pocket.
It should be remembered that Colvin is charged with a crime involving premeditation and deliberation and malice aforethought in the shooting of the deceased. Malice aforethought can be ascribed to the use of a deadly weapon. Caldwell v. State, 203 Ala. 412, 84 So. 272. It would indeed be an injustice to allow the State to prove that Colvin put the pistol in his pocket on the way to the scene of the wrecked automobile and not allow the accused to corroborate by the witness Calhoun his own statement that the purpose with which he placed the pistol in his pocket was self-protection. 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 601, p. 925.
But it has been suggested that the State was allowed to prove conduct on the part of the accused and that he should not be allowed to show a statement made in connection with the conduct, because under the principle of completeness the one does not include the other. This is a mistake. 'Under the res gestae or Verbal Act Doctrine, it is allowable to ascertain the complete significance of a person's conduct by listening to what he said when doing ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLaughlin v. State
...made statements indicating that his purpose was self-protection, Bedsole v. State, 274 Ala. 603, 150 So.2d 696 (1963); Colvin v. State, 260 Ala. 338, 70 So.2d 654 (1954), does not apply here. The appellant did not claim self-defense; the evidence does not support that theory; and the jury w......
-
Handley v. State
...McClendon v. State, 54 Ala.App. 327, 307 So.2d 723 (1975); Colvin v. State, 37 Ala.App. 268, 70 So.2d 650 (1953), aff'd, 260 Ala. 338, 70 So.2d 654 (1954). Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that the admission of the testimony of the wife concerning the appellant coming home without a shirt was ......
-
Hocutt v. State
...53 So. 283 (1910); Richardson v. State, 237 Ala. 11, 186 So. 580 (1938); Key v. State, 240 Ala. 1, 197 So. 363 (1939); Colvin v. State, 260 Ala. 338, 70 So.2d 654 (1954); Cox v. State, 280 Ala. 318, 198 So.2d 759 (1967). No doubt, it would have been better to exclude the reports. We find it......
-
Bedsole v. State
... ... But here the State, before resting, had shown that the defendant had purchased the shotgun on Saturday. This brings this case within the purview of Colvin v. State, 260 Ala. 338, 70 So.2d 654 and Colvin v. State, 37 Ala.App. 268, 70 So.2d 650, where the judgment of conviction was reversed because a witness for defendant was not permitted to repeat defendant's statement as to why he put a pistol, the death weapon, in his pocket over four hours prior ... ...