Dean v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1895 |
| Citation | 105 Ala. 21,17 So. 28 |
| Parties | DEAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Tallapoosa county; N. D. Denson, Judge.
C. M Dean was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant was indicted and tried for the murder of one George A. Wood, and was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and his punishment fixed at hard labor for the county for one year. On the trial of the cause, the evidence tended to show that the defendant, with some neighbors, went to examine a fence of the deceased, who, it was shown, had killed some of the defendant's sheep; that when the defendant, with his neighbors, came to the fence that was to be examined, they saw the deceased at work some 50 or 60 yards from the fence; that two of the party approached the deceased, and told him that they had come with the defendant to examine his fence, to which the deceased replied that it was all right, and turned to the defendant, who was sitting on the fence, about 50 or 60 yards away, and asked him about the lawsuit that was pending; that thereupon the deceased and the defendant got into a quarrel, and deceased cursed the defendant, and started towards him; that the defendant, who had a gun, backed off from the fence as the deceased approached it; that, as the deceased was getting over the fence, he put his right hand to his hip pocket, and, cursing the defendant, said he was not afraid of him or his gun whereupon the defendant fired upon the deceased, and wounded him, from the effects of which wound he died within an hour. There was evidence on behalf of the state tending to show that the deceased did not put his hand in his hip pocket, nor threaten the defendant.
Upon William Turner, a witness, testifying that he had known the defendant for 16 years, he was asked this question: "Is defendant a strong or weak minded man?" The solicitor objected to the question; the court sustained the objection and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant then asked the witness the following questions, to each of which the state objected, and the defendant separately excepted to the court's sustaining each objection: "When you excite Mr. Dean, does he become very much excited?" "When anything occurs to excite Mr. Dean, does he not become overbalanced?" "When defendant becomes excited to any considerable extent, does not lose his reason?" This witness having testified that he was present at the shooting the defendant asked him, "if defendant was not very much excited and agitated when he did the shooting." The witness answered that he was not. This witness further testified that deceased lay on the ground where he was shot until he died, and that he never spoke after being shot. The defendant proposed to prove by said witness "that the wife of deceased came to the place where he was shot in 15 or 20 minutes after the shooting, and ran up to where the wounded man was, and said, 'George [speaking to deceased], you said you would kill Charlie [meaning defendant], but now he has killed you,' to which her husband made no reply." The state objected to this testimony, and the defendant duly excepted to the court sustaining the objection. Upon defendant being examined as a witness in his own behalf, he was asked "if he knew Wood's disposition for fighting." The state objected to this question, which objection the court sustained, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant was asked by his counsel: "What did you take your gun down there for?" The court sustained the state's objection to this question, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant then testified: "That it was the darkest hour of his life; that he did not know what he was doing when he ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nevares.
...rule. Wharton on Homicide (3d Ed.) § 172; King v. Lesbini, [1914] 3 K. B. 1116, 7 British Ruling Cases 272, and case note; Dean v. State, 105 Ala. 21, 17 So. 28; People v. Ortiz, 320 Ill. 205, 150 N. E. 708; People v. Hurtado, 63 Cal. 288; Garlitz v. State, 71 Md. 293, 18 A. 39, 4 L. R. A. ......
-
Watters v. State
...may, in common parlance, be of weak mind, standing alone, does not go to negative such discriminating intelligence." Dean v. State, 105 Ala. 21, 24, 17 So. 28, 29 (1894). "(C)riminal incapacity is not established by a mere showing of weakness of intellect, a low order of intellect, suscepti......
-
Chambers v. State
...We hold that the trial court was correct in its ruling. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Lowery, 184 Ala. 443, 63 So. 952; Dean v. State, 105 Ala. 21, 17 So. 28; Reese v. State, 338 So.2d 495; Kiel v. State, 28 Ala.App. 308, 184 So. 208; Alabama Power Co. v. Ray, 249 Ala. 568, 32 So.2d 219; Es......
-
Gregory v. State
... ... defendant was properly not allowed to state why he had the ... pistol on the occasion of the difficulty. His secret motive ... or purpose for having the pistol concealed on his person was ... not a matter to which he should have been allowed to depose ... to in his own behalf. Dean v. State, 105 Ala. 21, ... 25, 17 So. 28 ... It is ... true that when a showing has been introduced for an absent ... witness the opposite party will not be allowed to impeach the ... witness by proof of contradictory statements; the reason for ... this being that the necessary ... ...