Dumas v. State

Decision Date08 April 1909
Citation159 Ala. 42,49 So. 224
PartiesDUMAS v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wilcox County; B. M. Miller, Judge.

Tingy Dumas was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Miller & Miller, for appellant.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Martin, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

McCLELLAN J.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree for the killing of John Goode. All the errors asserted relate to rulings on the admission and rejection of evidence. The deceased was shot in the side and arm; the weapon used being a pistol. He lived about three weeks after being shot. The physician attending deceased testified that the prime cause of his death was these wounds, and that blood poison developed. The defendant sought to show the diseased condition of deceased. There was no prejudicial error in the disallowance of that testimony. Whatever may have been the physical condition of deceased at the time the wounds were received could not have benefited the defendant. Even though the wounds "were, at first, trifling," defendant could not justify or minimize his criminal act by the fact if so, that the person of the victim was so diseased as to more readily become infected with blood poison. The causal connection between the wound and the death of deceased was clearly shown; and that the disease with which Goode suffered contributed, if so, to the extreme result, did not interrupt the order of causation.

No injury resulted to defendant from the exclusion of certain declarations said to have been made by alleged co-conspirators with the deceased in their assault on defendant. This testimony was later admitted, and error, if any, cured.

The inquiry of Dr. Semmes as to what the deceased said, during his last sickness, about the difficulty, was not preceded by the requisite predicate to admit dying declarations. We know of no reason why the rule in this respect should be different when the statement of one deceased is attempted to be offered by the defendant or otherwise. The question indicated was properly disallowed on appropriate objection.

The question purporting to call for expert opinion as to the relative attitude of the deceased and the instrument or person inflicting the wound was correctly ruled out. McKee's Case, 82 Ala. 32, 38, 2 So. 451. It related to an inference of fact, as capable of being drawn by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Roan v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 9 Junio 1932
    ...... deceased shortly after she received the wound, may give his. opinion as to how it was inflicted. Thaggard v. Vafes, 218 Ala. 609, 612, 119 So. 647; Rohn v. State, 186 Ala. 5, 65 So. 42; Landham v. Lloyd,. 223 Ala. 487, 136 So. 815; Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 42, 49 So. 224, 133 Am. St. Rep. 17; McKee v. State,. 82 Ala. 32, 2 So. 451; Blackburn v. State, 22 Ala. App. 561, 117 So. 614. . . The. bill of exceptions recites:. . . . "The. Solicitor for the State then asked the witness:. . . . . . ......
  • Eliasen's Estate, Matter of
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • 23 Junio 1983
    ...... Page 113 . which offense she was sentenced to and served time in the Idaho State Penitentiary. .         The decedent died testate, leaving his property to the son of the marriage, Charles Edgar Eliasen II, and to Terry ...State, 41 Ariz. 48, 15 P.2d 255 (Ariz.1932); McCahill v. New York Transp. Co., 201 N.Y. 221, 94 N.E. 616 (N.Y.1911); Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 42, 49 So. 224 (Ala.1909); Hopkins v. Commonwealth, 25 Ky. 2117, 80 S.W. 156 (Ky.1904). Equally well established but less ......
  • People v. Roderman
    • United States
    • New York County Court
    • 29 Mayo 1962
    ... . Page 209 . 229 N.Y.S.2d 209 . 34 Misc.2d 497 . The PEOPLE of the State of New York . v. . Charles RODERMAN, James Dowd, Defendants. . Queens County Court. . May 29, 1962. . Page 210 .         [34 Misc.2d 498] ...g., Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 42, 44, 49 So. 224 [1909]) and others countenance its rejection (Commonwealth v. Williams, 304 Pa. 299, 302, 156 A. 86 [1931]; ......
  • Thomas v. State, 6 Div. 177
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 14 Junio 1951
    ......State, 23 Ala.App. 125, 121 So. 904; Parker v. State, 24 Ala.App. 72, 130 So. 525; Ratliff v. State, 19 Ala.App. 505, 98 So. 493; Gissendanner v. State, 18 Ala.App. 199, 89 So. 835; Fonville v. State, 91 Ala. 39, 8 So. 688; Evans v. State, 209 Ala. 563, 96 So. 923; Dumas v. State, 159 Ala. 42, 49 So. 224; Johnson v. State, 102 Ala. 1, 16 So. 99; State v. Meyer, 86 Am.St.Rep. 638 for annotation.         The evidence goes to show that deceased was more interested in reporting the rencounter[255 Ala. 640] and having Thomas apprehended that he was for medical ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT