Cooper v. State
| Decision Date | 08 February 1944 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 817. |
| Citation | 18 So.2d 420,31 Ala.App. 356 |
| Parties | COOPER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 4, 1944.
James M. Prestwood and E. O. Baldwin, both of Andalusia, for appellant.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
The evidence in this case is in one accord as to one fact only and that is with reference to the serious and dangerous knife wounds which were inflicted upon the alleged injured party by the defendant. The physician and surgeon who attended Richard Fromm, the designated injured party, described the wounds upon his body and testified that several of the wounds were really very dangerous; and it appears from the record there could be no doubt about the very dangerous character of the almost innumerable wounds upon Fromm's body. That he survived them borders upon the miraculous. The doctor stated it was necessary to take from six hundred to eight hundred stitches in sewing up the wounds and that the injured man was on the operating table four hours and fifty minutes. We refrain from quoting further the gruesome description of the fearful wounds, as testified to by the attending physician and surgeon.
As stated hereinabove, there is no dispute or conflict in the testimony as to the foregoing.
The indictment charged assault with intent to murder, and the verdict of the jury reads: "We, the jury, find the defendant, Grant Cooper, guilty of an assault with intent to murder as charged in the indictment." He was so adjudged by the court and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of eight years. The record proper is in all respects regular and free from error. From the judgment of conviction this appeal was taken.
The State's evidence tended to show that this appellant inflicted the above described wounds upon the injured party in a cafe in the city of Andalusia, without any semblance of provocation.
The defendant and his witnesses in effect denied all the evidence of the State as to the attending facts of the difficulty and insisted that the injured party was the aggressor and was at fault in provoking and bringing on the difficulty and that he acted in self defense.
From the direct conflict in the testimony, as has been so often stated, jury questions were presented. The credibility and weight of the evidence and the legitimate inferences it afforded were for the jury. In other words, the weight to be given the evidence, its sufficiency in general, its probative value, or force, and the credibility of the witnesses where, upon the whole testimony, an issue of fact arises, are for the exclusive consideration and determination of the jury. The jury determine the weight to be given the testimony of the witnesses by their demeanor or conduct on the stand, their interest in the case, the probability or improbability of their testimony, its corroboration, the facts bearing on their credibility, their intelligence and knowledge, and not by the mere number of witnesses. Conflicting evidence should be reconciled by the jury, if possible, and if they can not reconcile it, they may base their verdict on that part of the testimony which they consider worthy of credit, and reject that which they deem to be unworthy of belief. Inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of a witness do not make it inherently improbable. The jury can not arbitrarily reject the evidence, but the testimony of a witness, which is wilfully and corruptly false, may be disregarded by the jury.
The extended discussion of the question involved is indulged for the reason, that in the brief and argument filed by able and earnest counsel in this case, we are impliedly urged to hold that the court erred in submitting this case to the jury as set forth in the first four grounds of defendant's motion for a new trial. Said insistences are as follows:
Pending the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berness v. State
...Ala. 521, 137 So. 317; Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408, 26 So.2d 633. If we adhere to Judge HARWOOD'S view the case of Cooper v. State, 31 Ala.App. 356, 18 So.2d 420, certiorari denied 245 Ala. 639, 18 So.2d 423, must be overruled. In the absence of the defendant the trial judge went into ......
-
Miller v. City of Birmingham, 6 Div. 377
...claim is sought to be justified on the ground of conflicting testimony on the part of the City's witnesses. We quote from Cooper v. State, 31 Ala.App. 356, 18 So.2d 420: '* * * Conflicting evidence should be reconciled by the jury, if possible, and if they can not reconcile it, they may bas......
-
Davenport v. State
...they were able to reconcile any inconsistencies and contradictions. Fuller v. State, 45 Ala.App. 133, 226 So.2d 677; Cooper v. State, 31 Ala.App. 356, 18 So.2d 420; Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. Outside the presence of the jury, the court indicated that if the appellant testified i......
-
Freeman v. State
...in the testimony of some or one of the prosecution witnesses is not sufficiently cogent in the instant record. Cooper v. State, 31 Ala.App. 356, 18 So.2d 420; Miller v. City of Birmingham, 44 Ala.App. 628, 218 So.2d Basically, contradictions of the hypothetical magnitude to support a motion......