Dennis v. State

• Decision Date: 15 August 1898
• Citation: 23 So. 1002,118 Ala. 72
• Parties: DENNIS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

23 So. 1002

118 Ala. 72

DENNIS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

August 15, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Jackson county; J. A. Bilbro, Judge.

Joel T Dennis was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed.

The evidence for the state showed that the defendant killed William D. Cunningham, in Jackson county, before the finding of the indictment. The state introduced several witnesses who testified that the defendant voluntarily confessed that he killed said Cunningham. It was shown that after killing Cunningham defendant threw his body into a river near by. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he killed the said Cunningham by shooting him in self-defense that while he and Cunningham were sleeping together in the same room, Cunningham tried to borrow money from him, and upon his (the defendant) refusing to lend it to him he became infuriated, and started towards him with a drawn knife, and that he then fired once upon Cunningham, which shot killed him. The bill of exceptions recites that during the examination of the state's witnesses "for the purpose of laying a predicate for the introduction of the evidence of Thomas Davis, an absent witness, and who was examined as a witness on a former trial of this case, the state introduced S. G. Grimmett, who testified that he knew Thomas Davis, and lived in the same section of the country where Davis lived; that he learned Davis had left the state and had not seen him since one night last spring; that Davis called at his house in the night last spring, and executed a deed of conveyance to his homestead, and said he was going to start the next day to Arkansas; that he feared he would be mobbed, and was going to leave, and would start the next day. Upon this testimony the state offered the testimony of said Davis given on the former trial of this case." To the introduction of this evidence of what Davis testified on the former trial the defendant objected upon the grounds that no sufficient predicate had been laid for the introduction of secondary evidence of such testimony, and that the statements made by the witness Grimmett were not legal or sufficient evidence for such a purpose. The court overruled the objection, allowed the introduction of the secondary evidence, and the defendant duly excepted. Later on in the progress of the trial it was shown without conflict that said witness Thomas Davis had left the state about the time testified to by said witness Grimmett, and that he was then in the state of Arkansas. Upon the introduction of all the evidence the defendant requested the court to give the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to each of them as asked: (1) "If W D. Cunningham made an attack upon Joel T. Dennis with a knife, under such circumstances as to make Dennis reasonably believe he was in danger of his life, or of serious bodily harm, and that he (Dennis) was reasonably free from fault in bringing on the difficulty or danger, and in that situation he fired the fatal shot, then the jury should acquit the defendant." (2) "If W. D. Cunningham made an attack upon Joel T. Dennis with a knife, under such circumstances as to make Dennis reasonably believe he was in danger of his life, or of serious bodily harm, and that he (Dennis) was reasonably free from fault in bringing on such difficulty or danger, and there was no other reasonable mode of escape from such danger, and in that situation he fired the fatal shot then the jury should acquit the defendant. If the jury have a reasonable doubt about the homicide having been committed in that way and under such circumstances, the jury should acquit." (3) "The fact, if it be a fact, that after the homicide the defendant put the body of the deceased in the river, this is a circumstance which the jury may consider in connection with the other evidence in the case, and arriving at a conclusion; but the defendant is not indicted for putting the body in the river, and cannot be punished for that." (4) "There is no evidence in this case that Dennis provoked or encouraged a difficulty with Cunningham." (5) "It is the duty of the jury to consider the evidence tending to show a justifying motive in connection with the other evidence in the case, and if they are in reasonable doubt of his guilt they should acquit him." (6) "The defendant is not indicted for putting the body in the river, and he cannot be punished for that act." (7) "In this case...