Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 15 October 1925 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 515 |
| Citation | 213 Ala. 541,105 So. 677 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Fayette County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.
Willis Davis was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and he appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under Code 1923, § 7324. Affirmed.
E.L Dodson, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and B.G. Wilson and M.E. Nettles, both of Jasper, for the State.
Willis Davis was convicted of an assault with intent to murder committed upon Arthur Gentry. The case was before the Court of Appeals on a former conviction. Davis v. State, 20 Ala.App. 131, 101 So. 171.
The case made by the state's testimony on the second trial is briefly this:
Sheriff Chambless and Deputies Gentry and Jackson, walking abreast on a neighborhood road about 9 o'clock at night, came upon the defendant sitting on the end of a log by the roadside. Defendant called, "Who in the hell is that?" raising a gun from his lap. The sheriff called, "Don't you shoot," Jackson flashed a light upon him, and defendant fired upon the officers with a shotgun, inflicting a slight wound on Gentry's hand. The three officers immediately returned the fire with pistols, inflicting serious wounds on defendant.
The defendant's version of the affair is that he was sitting inactive on the log, his gun resting on the ground. A flashlight was thrown upon him. He turned, and immediately the officers fired upon him. He denies that any words were spoken, or that he raised the gun or fired. There was corroborating evidence on both sides, which we need not give in detail.
The state was permitted, over defendant's objection, to produce evidence that defendant appeared to be drunk; that he smelled of liquor; that two jugs of liquor were found at the time within 52 feet of defendant; that another man Hunnicutt, was standing in the woods 21 feet from defendant with a pistol in hand.
State's witness W.J. (Dad) Micham testified, over defendant's objection, that 20 or 30 minutes before the difficulty witness met defendant; that defendant said he had liquor down the road; that witness told him he had better not bother it, that the officers were coming down there; that defendant replied he would go down there and guard it, and nobody would get his liquor.
The drunken condition of defendant, the presence of Hunnicutt with pistol in hand, the jugs of liquor near by, were all circumstances so closely connected with the shooting in time and place as to be a part of the res gestae. The same may be said of the exploded shotgun shell alleged to have been found next morning at the point where defendant fired. The conversation with Micham, if such there was, not only tended to show a motive for the crime, but an implied threat against the officers of the law--a defiance of all interference with his liquors.
Great stress is laid in argument upon the rule of law that testimony of distinct and disconnected crimes should not be admitted in criminal cases. This general rule is well grounded in principle. Any such evidence brought forward to bolster up another and distinct charge is so manifestly harmful and unfair as to call for a reversal of verdicts so obtained.
But the rule will not avail to exclude evidence of the res gestae, nor to close the door against proof of motive for the crime under investigation. Perpetration of one crime to conceal the existence of another, or to make way for the unhampered prosecution of a criminal course of conduct, cannot escape the severe scrutiny of the law because the investigation brings to light such course of conduct to the great embarrassment of the defense. Harden v. State, 211 Ala. 656, 101 So. 442; Gassenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313.
In view of the sharp conflict in the evidence as to whether the defendant assaulted the officers, or they made an assault on him, the evidence complained of was properly admitted as tending to explain the presence of the defendant, armed, and as showing a motive for an assault upon the officers. The probative force of this testimony, in the light of all the facts, was for the jury.
The trial court avoided any adverse rulings touching an effort or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State
...clearly established by the evidence. See Hall v. State, 247 Ala. 263, 24 So.2d 20; Miller v. State, 130 Ala. 1, 30 So. 379; Davis v. State, 213 Ala. 541, 105 So. 677. The case of Cobern v. State, 273 Ala. 547, 142 So.2d 869, bears marked similarity to this case on this question of the admis......
-
DeBruce v. State
...under the guidance of the court, to discuss the rules of law applicable to the different phases of the testimony." Davis v. State, 213 Ala. 541, 543, 105 So. 677, 678 (1925). "Statements of counsel to the court are not evidence." Evans v. State, 341 So.2d 749, 750 (Ala.Cr.App.1976), cert. d......
-
Cook v. State, 6 Div. 489
...or was designed to institute a comparison between such foreign and irrelevant facts and the facts of the case on trial. Davis v. State, 213 Ala. 541, 105 So. 677 (1925). While we may speculate that Mr. Tortorici was the victim of a robbery-murder, such is mere presumption on our part. To re......
-
Johnson v. State
...assault'. Canty v. State, 244 Ala. 108, 11 So.2d 844, 845, certiorari denied 319 U.S. 746, 63 S.Ct. 1030, 87 L.Ed. 1701; Davis v. State, 213 Ala. 541, 105 So. 677; Parsons v. State, 251 Ala. 467, 38 So.2d 209; Jackson v. State, 229 Ala. 48, 155 So. 581; Keith v. State, 253 Ala. 670, 46 So.2......