Dunn v. State
Decision Date | 09 February 1905 |
Citation | 143 Ala. 67,39 So. 147 |
Parties | DUNN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Pickens County; S. H. Sprott, Judge.
Matt Dunn, alias Lawrence Hopkins, was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant excepted to the giving by the court at the written request of the state charges numbered 1 and 2, which are in the following language: After the court, without objection, had duly impaneled the jury to try the case, and after the jury had been selected and accepted by the state and the defendant the defendant moved the court to quash the special venire served on him, because on the copy served on him the name of John R. Carver, Jr., appeared, and the defendant offered testimony tending to show that there was no such person as John R. Carver, Jr., in the county of Pickens.
Willett & Willett, for appellant.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted in the court below of murder in the first degree, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life. From the judgment of conviction he has appealed.
The first question presented by the record for consideration relates to the action of the court in overruling a motion to quash the indictment. The motion was based upon the ground that one Richardson, who had been summoned as a grand juror was not present when the other members of the grand jury were sworn, but that he came in the courtroom after the jury was sworn, and while the presiding judge was engaged in delivering his charge to the jury; that the court's attention was called to the fact that Richardson was present and thereupon the court had him duly sworn as a member of the grand jury, and he took his seat as one of the jury. The bill of exceptions shows affirmatively that the presiding judge then rehearsed that part of the charge which was delivered in the absence of said Richardson, and the jury was then charged as a whole, and placed in the charge of a bailiff, with instructions to retire and enter upon the discharge of their duties, and that Richardson participated in the finding of the indictment against the defendant. We fail to see any merit in the contention of the defendant upon this question even if we were without a statute regulating such questions. Section 5269 of the Code of 1896 points out the only objection which may be taken to an indictment, by plea in abatement or otherwise, with respect to the formation of the grand jury. The ground stated in the statute is that the grand jurors were not drawn in the presence of the persons designated by law. Furthermore, if error could be predicated of the court's action in overruling the motion, we think it would be error without injury to the defendant, and would be healed by section 4333 of the Code of 1896. The motion to quash the special venire was not made until after the jury to try the case had been selected and accepted by the state and the defendant. The motion came too late, and for this reason, if for no other, the court did not err in overruling it. Ryan's Case, 100 Ala. 105, 14 So. 766; Longmire's Case, 130 Ala. 66, 30 So. 413.
The defendant sought to prove previous threats made by the deceased, which were communicated to defendant before the fatal shooting. As was well said in the case of Rutledge v. State, 88 Ala. 85, 7 So. 335: Rutledge's Case, 88 Ala. 85, 7 So. 335; Jones' Case, 116 Ala. 468, 23 So. 135. The evidence in the case on the part of the state clearly showed that the defendant sought the deceased and killed him from a spirit of retaliation and revenge, for the purpose of punishing the deceased for past injuries done him.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hall v. State
...regard to the length of time intervening after the intent and the act. Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 7, 32, 21 So. 378; Dunn v. State, 143 Ala. 67, 73, 39 So. 147; Arman v. State, 71 Ala. 351; Id., 77 Ala. 10. Refused charge 6 pretermits freedom from fault; and charge 7 pretermits imminent ......
-
Andrews v. State
... ... preliminary ministerial error not previously called ... to the attention of the court." (Italics supplied.) The ... soundness of this doctrine of Thomas' Case has never been ... doubted by this court. It was clearly recognized in ... Ryan's Case, 100 Ala. 105, 108, 14 So. 766; Dunn's ... Case, 143 Ala. 67, 71, 39 So. 147; Longmire's Case, 130 ... Ala. 66, 67, 30 So. 413; Smith's Case, 133 Ala. 73, 77, ... 31 So. 942. It is denied its wholesome and rational effect in ... this class of cases (Bailey's Case, supra) in consequence ... of the asserted difference between the ... ...
-
Sanders v. State, 5 Div. 522
...at the time that he did, and that death would be the result of the act. White v. State, 236 Ala. 124, 181 So. 109 (1938); Dunn v. State, 143 Ala. 67, 39 So. 147 (1905). Malice, as the term is used in defining murder, is the intent to take human life without legal excuse, justification or mi......
-
Shirley v. State
... ... curative terms of section 5269 of the Code of 1896 as ... construed in Billingslea's Case, 68 Ala. 486 ... Consequently the court properly overruled the motion to quash ... the indictment. Phillips' Case, 68 Ala. 469; ... Thompson's Case, 122 Ala. 12, 26 So. 141; Dunn's ... Case, (Ala.) 39 So. 147; Hall's Case, 134 Ala. 90, 32 So ... 750. This renders it unnecessary to consider ... [40 So. 271.] ... any question raised on the rulings of the court on the ... admissibility of evidence on the trial of the motion to quash ... and on the nunc pro tunc ... ...