Dixon v. State
| Decision Date | 16 January 1901 |
| Citation | 29 So. 623,128 Ala. 54 |
| Parties | DIXON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; A. D. Sayre, Judge.
Pie Dixon was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
The appellant was indicted and tried for unlawfully and with malice aforethought killing one Willie Hooks by shooting him with a gun, was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to the penitentiary for 11 years. The evidence for the state tended to show that one W. E. Means owned a store and that the defendant was in his employment; that said Means and Willie Hooks, the deceased, got to fooling with one another in the front of the store; that Means playfully struck at Willie Hooks with a broom with which he was sweeping; that thereupon Hooks drew a pistol, and in a spirit of fun leveled at Means; that Means called to some person standing by, and told him to bring him a gun or pistol; that neither Hooks nor the said Means was angry, but all that they did was done in a spirit of playfulness; that the defendant who was at this time on the second floor of the store occupied by Means, ran down the steps which were built on the side of the storehouse with a gun in his hands, and as he got to the front of the store he drew the gun up and fired killing Willie Hooks instantly. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the firing of the gun was entirely accidental, that the defendant did not know the gun was loaded, and that it was fired while he had it in his hand holding it by his side. The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that he was carrying the gun downstairs, and had no intention of killing the deceased. During the examination of several of the state's witnesses they testified that, although the defendant was upstairs on the second floor of the store, he was at the place where he could see and hear what was going on in front of the store. Several of the state's witnesses were asked during their examination to state what took place between Means and Hooks before the shooting. The defendant objected to each of these questions, and moved to exclude the answers of each of the witnesses thereto, upon the ground that it had not been shown that the defendant was present at the time inquired about. The court overruled each of the objections and motions, and to each of such rulings the defendant separately excepted. On the part of the defendant there was evidence tending to show that while he was upstairs he could not see or hear anything that was taking place between the deceased and Means, and that he did not know of any altercation between them until he came down the steps. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State
...to have framed a premeditated as well as a malicious design to kill after taking up the gun and before it was fired." Dixon v. State, 128 Ala. 54, 58, 29 So. 623 (1901). The existence of premeditation and deliberation must be determined from the particular facts and individual circumstances......
-
Morris v. State
... ... conclusion of the affray was a continuous transaction, and ... all that was said and done by the parties to it while the ... affray was in progress was of the res gestæ. Wood's Case, ... 128 Ala. 27, 29 So. 557, 86 Am. St. Rep. 71; Dixon's ... Case, 128 Ala. 54, 29 So. 623; Armor's Case, 63 Ala. 173; ... Stitt's Case, 91 Ala. 10, 8 So. 669, 24 Am. St. Rep. 853; ... Smith's Case, 88 Ala. 73, 7 So. 52; Seam's Case, 84 ... Ala. 411, 4 So. 521; Amos' Case, 83 Ala. 1, 3 So. 749, 3 ... Am. St. Rep. 682; Plant's Case, 140 Ala. 52, 37 ... ...
-
Dickey v. State
...Milner and all that was said and done at that time was competent. Wood v. State, 128 Ala. 27, 29 So. 557, 86 Am.St.Rep. 71; Dixon v. State, 128 Ala. 54, 29 So. 623; McAnally v. State, 74 Ala. 9; Wilson State, 68 So. 543; Thomas v. State, 133 Ala. 139, 32 So. 250; West v. State, 168 Ala. 1, ......
-
Newsom v. State
... ... [72 So. 583] ... the use of a deadly weapon whereby one intentionally takes ... the life of another the law raises a prima facie presumption ... that the killing was done maliciously unless the ... circumstances of the killing disprove malice." Dixon ... v. State, 128 Ala. 57, 29 So. 623 ... "Where one intentionally kills another with a deadly ... weapon, there is a formed design to kill, and the law ... presumes malice, unless the evidence which proves the killing ... rebuts the presumption. Whether the 'formed design' ... to take life ... ...