Eatman v. State

Decision Date21 January 1904
Citation139 Ala. 67,36 So. 16
PartiesEATMAN v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lamar County; S. H. Sprott, Judge.

Jack Eatman was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

The indictment contained two counts. The first count charged that the killing was by striking the deceased with a hammer, or by striking her head against a tree. The second count was in words and figures as follows: "The grand jury of said county further charge that, before the finding of this indictment, Jack Eatman, unlawfully and with malice aforethought, killed Kittie Eatman by striking her with some weapon to the grand jury unknown, or by some means to the grand jury unknown, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." The defendant demurred to the second count of the indictment upon the ground that the means by which the offense was committed are not sufficiently described, as required by law. This demurrer was overruled.

Upon the state introducing Beatrice Eatman as a witness, the defendant objected to her testifying, because of her youth and because she did not understand the obligations of an oath. Upon the voir dire examination of said witness, she testified that she did not know how old she was; that she could not read, had never been to school, and had been to church but one time in her life. She further testified that God made her; that she knew it was wrong to tell a story that she would be punished if she told a story, would be put in jail, and would go to the "bad place" when she died. It was further shown that she was nine years old. The court ruled that the witness was competent, and permitted her to be examined. To this ruling the defendant duly excepted. This witness testified that she was the child of the defendant and Kittie Eatman, the deceased; that she was present when her mother was killed by the defendant; that the defendant and her mother had a fuss the morning of the killing, and the defendant jerked her mother off of the porch of her house, threw her against the ground, knocked her head against a plum tree, choked her, and then hit her in the head several times with a hammer, and then ran off; that her mother was doing nothing to her father at the time the latter assaulted her, and never struck or tried to strike him. There was other evidence introduced tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the homicide.

The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, testified that on the morning of the killing he asked his wife, the deceased to go to the field and work with him; that she declined to go, giving as an excuse that there was too much dew on the ground; that after leaving the house his suspicions were aroused, and he returned near his house, in a circuitous way and, when he got within 150 or 200 yards of the house, sat down in a clump of bushes; that, after being there a few moments, he saw his wife coming in the direction of where he was sitting; that, when she got within about 30 feet of him she saw him, and cried out in an angry and excited manner, and, just as she did this, a man by the name of Dan Gentry jumped up from some bushes about 30 feet distant from him and ran away; that thereupon his wife commenced to quarrel with him, and they went back to the house; that his wife continued to quarrel, and made threats, and he left the house; that, as he walked from the house, he saw his wife pick up a hammer, and she started towards him with the hammer, and hit him with it, whereupon he caught her, took the hammer from her, threw her down, and hit her several blows. On the cross-examination of the defendant as a witness, he testified that he had never had any reason to suspect his wife before that morning, and never had. The solicitor for the state asked the defendant, upon his cross-examination, "if he didn't strike deceased because she tried to strike him, and if this was not the only reason he struck the deceased." The defendant objected to this question, because it called for a motive, and was inadmissible. The court overruled the objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant testified that that was the reason he struck the deceased.

About 3 o'clock in the afternoon, during the trial of this cause the solicitor for the state asked the court to adjourn the case until the next morning, in order to give him time to send for Dan Gentry, who lived several miles distant, and stated that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Knowles v. Blue
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 18 Enero 1923
    ...not merely cumulative or impeaching (Walker v. State, 117 Ala. 85, 23 So. 670; Gaines v. State, 146 Ala. 16, 41 So. 865; Eatman v. State, 139 Ala. 67, 73, 36 So. 16; Cyc. 108; 6 R. C. L. p. 558, §§ 14, 16; 13 C.J. p. 154, §§ 67, 68; 122 Am. St. Rep. 749, 751); and (6) that the motion for a ......
  • Thomas v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 24 Enero 1907
    ... ... question, "So you killed your wife accidentally, ... Andrew?" The court overruled an objection to the ... question made by the defendant. In this ruling we find no ... error. Williams' Case, 123 Ala. 39, 26 So. 521; ... Hurst's Case, 133 Ala. 96, 31 So. 933; Eatman's Case, ... 139 Ala. 67, 36 So. 16 ... On ... cross-examination the defendant testified that he did not ... tell Mrs. Wheeler that he was going to kill his wife. It was ... competent in the rebuttal, and as original evidence, for the ... state to prove by Mrs. Wheeler that defendant ... ...
  • Nelson v. State, 6 Div. 418
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 17 Abril 1973
    ...48 So. 796. Where the means is unknown it is proper to allege in the indictment 'by some means to the grand jury unknown'. Eatman v. State, 139 Ala. 67, 36 So. 16; McDonald v. State, 241 Ala. 172, 1 So.2d Title 15, Section 259, Code of Alabama 1940, form 79, is prescribed for murder in the ......
  • Albright v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 20 Marzo 1973
    ...48 So. 796. Where the means is unknown it is proper to allege in the indictment 'by some means to the grand jury unknown'. Eatman v. State, 139 Ala. 67, 36 So. 16; McDonald v. State, 241 Ala. 172, 1 So.2d Title 15, § 259, Code of Alabama 1940, form 79, is prescribed for murder in the first ......
  • 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