Dent v. State

• Decision Date: 06 February 1895
• Citation: 105 Ala. 14,17 So. 94
• Parties: DENT v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

17 So. 94

105 Ala. 14

DENT v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 6, 1895

Appeal from circuit court, Barbour county; J. M. Carmichael, Judge.

John Dent was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

The testimony for the state tended to show that at night, while the deceased was lying on a bed asleep, the defendant came into the room, and cursing the deceased said, "I have got you now," and then shot him twice with a double-barrel shotgun. The testimony for the defendant was in direct conflict with that of the state as to the circumstances of the killing, and tended to show that the defendant, who was acting as foreman on a plantation, where he and the deceased lived, went to the house where the deceased was that night, for the purpose of getting a key to lock up the "gear house"; that as he entered the room with a gun on his shoulder, the deceased grabbed the gun, and in the scuffle it was discharged and shot the deceased; and that upon the deceased drawing a pistol upon him, he, the defendant, shot the other barrel at him. The testimony for the defendant also tended to show that the deceased had previously threatened him, and had also on that same night shot at him. The defendant as a witness in his own behalf, offered to testify that "he went to Mr Williams' and asked for matches with which to look for the gear-house key," which he had lost. The state objected to this testimony, the court sustained the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The other ruling upon the evidence is shown in the opinion. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the court at the request of the solicitor gave to the jury the following written charges to the giving of each of which the defendant separately excepted: (1) "If the jury believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant killed Carter Williams in revenge of a former wrong, real or imaginary then the jury must find the defendant guilty." (2) "The court charges the jury that before they can acquit the defendant, they must be reasonably satisfied that the defendant shot and killed Carter Williams under an immediate and impending sense of great danger to life or limb, either real or apparent, and that there was no other probable means of escape, and the defendant must not have been the aggressor." (3) "A doubt to acquit defendant must be actual and substantial, not mere possibility or speculation. It is not a mere possibility or possible doubt because everything relating to human affairs, and depending upon moral evidence is open to some possible or imaginary doubt." (4) "While the law requires the guilt of the accused to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it does not require that each fact which may aid the jury in reaching the conclusion of guilt shall be clearly proved, but that on the whole evidence the jury must be able to pronounce that guilt is proved to a moral certainty." (5) "The state is not required to prove defendant's guilt beyond all doubt, but only to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt." It is not deemed necessary to set out the charges asked by the defendant, and refused by the court.

Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

1. It was shown that defendant was Mr. Drewry's second foreman,-of what, is not stated, but it may be inferred, on his...