Fariss v. State

CourtAlabama Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTONE, C.J.
Citation85 Ala. 1,4 So. 679
PartiesFARISS v. STATE.
Decision Date16 July 1888

4 So. 679

85 Ala. 1

FARISS
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

July 16, 1888


Appeal from city court of Montgomery; T. M. ARRINGTON, Judge.

The defendant, Irvine Fariss, was indicted for murder, and from a conviction of manslaughter he brings this appeal. The charge to which reference is made in the opinion is as follows: "(3) If the proof of self-defense in this case depends entirely upon the testimony of the defendant himself, and there is no other witness who testifies to facts tending to prove self-defense, the jury are authorized to consider this fact in weighing the testimony, and may also consider the fact that the defendant testified under the influence of great interest in the result of the case, and the further fact, if it be a fact, that there is a conflict between the testimony of the defendant and of Mr. Johnson, and also between that of the defendant and the other witnesses who swear that they saw the difficulty; and if, from these circumstances, they find that the defendant has not told the truth, they may reject his testimony altogether; and, if they do so reject said testimony, there is no element of self-defense proven in this case." The defendant excepted to the giving of this charge. [4 So. 680]

John G. Winter, for appellant.

T. N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.

STONE, C.J.

The defendant was indicted for murder, and convicted of manslaughter in the first degree. On March 10, 1888, the defendant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and Thursday, April 12, 1888, was set for the trial. The court ordered that "fifty jurors, including the regular jurors summoned for the week in which this case is set for trial, be summoned for the trial of this cause." No question is raised on the summoning and impaneling of the jury except what is after shown. The case was taken up for trial during the week for which it was set. Pending the drawing of jurors for the purpose of selecting and impaneling the jury, five several names were drawn, each of whom was of "the regular jurors summoned for the week." They not appearing, the court announced, in reference to each of them, that, on their several applications, they had been excused by him from attendance on the court as jurymen for reasons which the court deemed sufficient. This had been done without the knowledge of defendant, and the discharge had been ordered on Monday, the first judicial day of the week. This question was properly reserved for our consideration. In Parsons v. State, 22 Ala. 50, this court held that the discharge of a juror under circumstances shown above, if objected to on the trial, was a reversible error. In Sylvester's Case, 71 Ala. 17, speaking of this subject, we said: "Without deciding it to be error to excuse a juror from service before a capital felony is regularly called for trial, when he is shown to be exempt by statute, we are of opinion that the safer practice is not to excuse any juror, in advance of the trial, until he claims the privilege of such exemption on his name being regularly drawn." Phillips v. State, 68 Ala. 469; Shelton v. State, 73 Ala. 5. This question, however, has been twice decided the other way,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Stinson v. State, 1 Div. 633.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 28, 1931
    ...the regular juries, "for good and sufficient reasons then made known to the Court," and usually entered of record. Fariss' Case, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679; Plant's Case, 140 Ala. 52, 37 So. 159; Moseley's Case, 107 Ala. 74, 17 So. 932; Maxwell's Case, 89 Ala. 150, 7 So. 824; Thomas v. ......
  • City of Birmingham v. Lane, 6 Div. 821.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 18, 1923
    ...And where that duty is thus exercised by a trial court, such action will not be reviewed. State v. Marshall, 8 Ala. 302; Fariss v. State, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679; Griffin v. State, 90 Ala. 596, 8 So. 670; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 259, 23 So. 3; Schieffelin v. Schieffelin, 127 A......
  • Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Hill
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 24, 1891
    ...be justified on that ground. Salm v. State, 89 Ala. 56, 8 South. Rep. 66; Kennedy v. State, 85 Ala. 327, 5 South. Rep. 300; Fariss v. State, 85 Ala 1, 4 South. Rep. 679. 19. In Calhoun v. Hannan, 87 Ala. 277, 6 South. Rep. 291, this court said: "The burden being on the plaintiff to sho......
  • Schieffelin v. Schieffelin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 5, 1900
    ...not arbitrarily but for good purposes in the interest of justice,-to do so. Williamson v. Mayer, 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; Fariss v. State, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679; State v. Marshall, 8 Ala. 302. Nor was there error in requiring the defendant to pass on the eight jurors remaining, after four had......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Stinson v. State, 1 Div. 633.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 28, 1931
    ...the regular juries, "for good and sufficient reasons then made known to the Court," and usually entered of record. Fariss' Case, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679; Plant's Case, 140 Ala. 52, 37 So. 159; Moseley's Case, 107 Ala. 74, 17 So. 932; Maxwell's Case, 89 Ala. 150, 7 So. 824; Thomas v. ......
  • City of Birmingham v. Lane, 6 Div. 821.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 18, 1923
    ...And where that duty is thus exercised by a trial court, such action will not be reviewed. State v. Marshall, 8 Ala. 302; Fariss v. State, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679; Griffin v. State, 90 Ala. 596, 8 So. 670; Williamson v. Mayer Bros., 117 Ala. 253, 259, 23 So. 3; Schieffelin v. Schieffelin, 127 A......
  • Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Hill
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 24, 1891
    ...be justified on that ground. Salm v. State, 89 Ala. 56, 8 South. Rep. 66; Kennedy v. State, 85 Ala. 327, 5 South. Rep. 300; Fariss v. State, 85 Ala 1, 4 South. Rep. 679. 19. In Calhoun v. Hannan, 87 Ala. 277, 6 South. Rep. 291, this court said: "The burden being on the plaintiff to sho......
  • Schieffelin v. Schieffelin
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 5, 1900
    ...not arbitrarily but for good purposes in the interest of justice,-to do so. Williamson v. Mayer, 117 Ala. 253, 23 So. 3; Fariss v. State, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679; State v. Marshall, 8 Ala. 302. Nor was there error in requiring the defendant to pass on the eight jurors remaining, after four had......
  • 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