Dabney v. State
Citation | 113 Ala. 38,21 So. 211 |
Parties | DABNEY v. STATE. |
Decision Date | 08 January 1897 |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; John G. Winter, Judge.
Mark Dabney was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
The evidence for the state, as shown by the bill of exceptions tended to show that, upon the night of the killing, Flem Faulkner came to the house which was occupied by his wife Harriet Faulkner, and asked for admittance; that he was refused admittance to the house, whereupon he proceeded to break down the door, and, upon entering the door, he was shot by the defendant; that the defendant was in the house of Harriet Faulkner, armed with a pistol; that Harriet Faulkner the wife of the deceased, was in there with him undressed and there was no light in the house. The testimony for the defendant tended to show that upon Flem Faulkner's coming to the house, and demanding admittance, he said that he had come there to kill both the people who were in the house; and that, after breaking open the door, he entered the house with his pistol drawn, and pointed at the defendant, whereupon the defendant fired and killed him; and that there was no exit from the house except through the door Flem Faulkner was entering at the time he was killed. The court charged the jury, ex mero motu: Defendant objected to that part of the charge of the court commencing with the words, "But if the defendant, having reason to believe," and thence on to the end. The court gave the following charge, at the instance of the state: "If the jury believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that in this county, and before...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Warren v. State
...... failure to so charge in this case; but, as we are reversing. for failure to allow other proof, we do not decide this. question. Gafford's Case, 122 Ala. 54, 25 So. 10;. Robinson's Case, 155 Ala. 67, 45 So. 916; Montgomery. v. State, 160 Ala. 7, 49 So. 902; Dabney's Case, 113. Ala. 38, 42, 21 So. 211, 59 Am.St.Rep. 92; Stallworth's. Case, 146 Ala. 15, 41 So. 184. . . While. it is not reversible error for the trial court to fail or. decline to instruct the jury as to manslaughter when there is. no tendency in the evidence to justify a ......
-
Thomas v. State
......614, 30 L.Ed. 708. . . "If. a husband finds his wife committing adultery and under the. provocation instantly takes her life, the homicide is only. manslaughter." Hooks' Case, 99 Ala. 166, 13 So. 767;. McNeill's Case, 102 Ala. 121, 15 So. 352, 48 Am. St. Rep. 17; Dabney's Case, 113 Ala. 38, 21 So. 211, 59 Am. St. Rep. 92; Williams' Case, 130 Ala. 107, 112, 30 So. 484. There is nothing in the evidence as disclosed by the record. which tends to show such a provocation; nor is there anything. [43 So. 375] . disclosed which tends in the slightest to show ......
-
Gafford v. State
...... offense, and whether he acted under the heat of sudden. passion, thereby excited, as in other cases of homicide under. the heat of passion excited by great provocation. Hooks. v. State, 99 Ala. 166, 13 So. 767; McNeill v. State, 102 Ala. 125, 15 So. 352; Dabney v. State, 113 Ala. 38, 21 So. 211. It will be observed that. these three cases do not contravene the doctrine as laid down. by Bishop, but simply do not require that it shall be. necessary that the husband shall detect or discover them in. the very act of adultery. . . I have. ......
-
Angling v. State
...... under the provocation, instantly takes her life, or the. adulterer's, the homicide is only manslaughter." 2. Bishop's New Crim. Law, § 708; McNeill v. State,. 102 Ala. 121, 15 So. 352, 48 Am. St. Rep. 17; Hooks v. State, 99 Ala. 166, 13 So. 767; Dabney v. State, 113 Ala. 38, 21 So. 211, 59 Am. St. Rep. 92. Likewise, there was no error in excluding the evidence. offered by defendant that he had, previous to the killing,. ordered deceased to stay away from his house. Johnson v. State (Ala.) 34 So. 209. It might well have been. admitted in ......