Duncan v. State
| Decision Date | 13 January 1890 |
| Parties | DUNCAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Dale county; J. M. CARMICHAEL, Judge.
Indictment for murder. The defendant in this case, Henry Duncan, was indicted for the murder of his wife, "by giving her morphine," or, as alleged in the second count of the indictment, "a poison, the precise kind of which is unknown to the grand jury," was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to death. The body of the deceased was exhumed the day after the burial, and the contents of the stomach were analyzed by Dr. Lupton, of Auburn, who testified that they contained "one grain and six-tenths of morphine." The prosecution proved that the defendant had, with the assistance of a friend, bought a bottle of morphine about a week or 10 days before the death of his wife; but he testified in his own behalf that he had given the bottle to his wife, and she had locked it up in a trunk, and he denied that he administered any morphine to her. He adduced evidence, also, of declarations made by his wife, who was far advanced in pregnancy, showing that she was very despondent, complained of her condition and her hard lot, and said she would destroy her unborn child, if she knew how to do it. Alexander Dean, a witness for the state testified to a conversation had by him with the defendant while standing by the grave, on the evening of the day of his wife's death, (Thursday,) in which the defendant told him "he was going to do something that might be a leap in the dark, but he was going to risk it," and asked him to take a note to Georgia Balderee, and a message asking her to meet him Saturday evening, "at the big gate near the plum tree," that he was to go to the house, "and take up a book, and ask her if it was hers, when she would understand, and he was to give her the note." The witness further testified that, "about three or four weeks" before the death of Mrs. Duncan, he had another conversation with defendant, in which the latter told him of an interview between himself and Georgia Balderee, in which he advised her not to marry one Miller unless she loved him that he then asked witness, "What would you think if she gave me to understand that she loved me better than any other man?" and witness answered "that he would not be suprised." The defendant moved to exclude this conversation from the jury as evidence, "on the ground that it was irrelevant and misleading," and he excepted to the overruling of his motion by the court. J. S. Judah, a witness for the state, testified that he had a conversation with the defendant on Friday, the day after his wife's death, in which the defendant asked him "to carry him and the Balderee woman to Ozark the next night to marry," but witness refused; that the defendant "then set the next Thursday," but on Saturday "after going to Balderee's," he came to witness, and told him "they had decided to leave on Saturday night, and would probably go to Headlands." The defendant moved to exclude from the jury what was said about marrying the Balderee woman, and he again excepted to the overruling of his motion by the court. William Windham another witness for the prosecution, testified that, "about two months before the death of defendant's wife, he heard the defendant say that the Balderee woman was a nice, pretty girl, and that he would like to have her." The defendant objected, and excepted to the admission of this evidence. The prosecution proved, also, that the defendant and "the Balderee woman ran off together on said Saturday night, but were pursued by her father and others, overtaken in Florida, and brought back; and the defendant admitted, in his statement to the jury, that he intended to marry the girl the next day after they were overtaken and brought back. The defendant reserved another exception, which is thus stated in the bill of exceptions: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cook v. State, 6 Div. 489
...241 Ala. 178, 1 So.2d 920 (1941). We will not presume a fact not shown by the record and make it a ground of reversal. Duncan v. State, 88 Ala. 31, 7 So. 104 (1889). The comment of the prosecutor does not refer to the specific facts of another case and nowhere approaches those comments cond......
-
Jackson v. State
...error is founded on bare suspicion and surmise." Kimbrough v. State, 429 So.2d 1143, 1146 (Ala.Crim.App.1983). See also Duncan v. State, 88 Ala. 31, 7 So. 104 (1889); Nolen v. State, 35 Ala.App. 249, 45 So.2d 786 (1950). We find no basis upon which the trial court could be said to have comm......
-
Freeman v. State
... ... 2 "This court can only consider a case as presented by the record, Jackson v. State, 260 Ala. 641, 71 So.2d 825 (1954), and will not presume a fact not shown by the record and make it a ground for reversal. Duncan v. State, 88 Ala. 31, 7 So. 104 (1889)." McGinnis, supra, at 607-08. Moreover, in Morrison v. State, 500 So.2d 36, 40-42 (Ala.Cr.App.1985) aff'd, 500 So.2d 57 (Ala.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1007, 107 S.Ct. 1634, 95 L.Ed.2d 207 (1987), the appellant contended that the death qualification of ... ...
-
Jarrell v. State
...probative value rather than to its admissibility. We hold that the proof was properly allowed. Baalam v. State, 17 Ala. 451; Duncan v. State, 88 Ala. 31, 7 So. 104; Fowler v. State, 155 Ala. 21, 45 So. 913; Streety v. State, 165 Ala. 71, 51 So. 415; Brothers v. State, 236 Ala. 448, 183 So. ......