Dudley v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1914 |
| Citation | 64 So. 309,185 Ala. 27 |
| Parties | DUDLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lowndes County; A.E. Gamble, Judge.
Richard Dudley was convicted of crime, and appeals. Affirmed.
A.D Pitts, of Selma, William H. & J.R. Thomas, of Montgomery, and Joseph R. Bell, of Hayneville, for appellant.
R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
DE GRAFFENRIED, J.
Section 7149 of the present Code provides that when an "offense may be committed by different means, or with different intents, such means or intents may be alleged in the same count (of an indictment) in the alternative." In the instant case the defendant demurred to the indictment upon the ground that it alleged, in the alternative, that the defendant committed the unlawful homicide charged in the indictment, by cutting the deceased "with a knife or by shooting him with a gun." The indictment was not subject to the grounds of demurrer interposed to it. Code 1907, § 7149, and authorities there cited.
2. The evidence in this case tended to show that the deceased and the defendant engaged in a difficulty; that the deceased pending this difficulty, went into a house, procured a gun came out and shot twice at the defendant as he ran off, that the defendant went immediately to another house, procured a gun, and came back to where the deceased was, and that, both parties being armed with guns, the difficulty was renewed, and that the defendant, in the renewed difficulty, shot and killed the deceased. The quo animo of the defendant, in procuring the gun, under the circumstances mentioned, was clearly a matter of legitimate inquiry; and, as the declarations of the defendant when he procured the gun tended to show his mental attitude at that time, and to illustrate the purposes for which he procured the gun, we can see no reason why the trial court can be said to have committed error in permitting the declarations of the defendant, when he procured the gun, to be given in evidence to the jury. The declarations of the defendant when he procured the gun were, under some of the tendencies of the evidence, a part of the res gestae of the homicide. Ellis v. State, 105 Ala. 72, 17 So. 119; 1 Mayf.Dig. p. 82, and subd. 89.
3. The evidence in this case, without dispute shows that the fatal difficulty occurred in the afternoon, and that the deceased brought on the fatal difficulty by upbraiding the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roan v. State
...... but of some evidentiary value as a part of the res gestæ in. illustrating the character of the main fact and in tending to. intimidate the witnesses present. State v. Stallings, 142 Ala. 112, 38 So. 261; Laws v. State, 209 Ala. 174, 95 So. 819; Dudley v. State, 185 Ala. 27, 64 So. 309. . . There. was no error of which defendant can complain, in allowing the. witness Sells to tell the statement or invitation by. defendant to deceased to go out on the brow of the mountain. to examine him. It explained to the jury how deceased came ......
-
Brown v. State, 6 Div. 238
...... Ed., p. 1539. . . . 'Acts or declarations, to be admissible under the. principle of res gestae, must be substantially. contemporaneous with the main fact under consideration, and. so closely connected with it as to illustrate its. character.' Dudley v. State, 185 Ala. 27, 64 So. 309, 310. See also, Roan v. State, 225 Ala. 428, 143. So. 454. . . We. sometimes labor under the false premise that if a transaction. occurs at or about the time of the happening of the main. event, this and this alone brings the transaction ......
-
Baird v. State
...contemporaneous with the main fact under consideration and so closely connected with it as to illustrate its character, Dudley v. State, 185 Ala. 27, 64 So. 309 [(1914)]; Jackson v. State, 177 Ala. 12, 59 So. 171 [ (1912)]; Moss v. State, 190 Ala. 14, 67 So. 431 [(1914) ]. It is true, howev......
-
Johnson v. State
...v. State, 257 Ala. 100, 57 So.2d 388; Stuart v. State, 244 Ala. 434, 14 So.2d 147; Laws v. State, 209 Ala. 174, 95 So. 819; Dudley v. State, 185 Ala. 27, 64 So. 309; Domingus v. State, 94 Ala. 9, 11 So. 190; Pugh v. State, 30 Ala.App. 572, 10 So.2d 833, certiorari denied 243 Ala. 507, 10 So......