Fisher v. State
| Decision Date | 10 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 742. |
| Citation | 129 So. 303,23 Ala.App. 544 |
| Parties | FISHER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; J. E. Livingston Special Judge.
Thomas P. Fisher was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Wright Warren & Searcy, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted for the offense of murder in the first degree tried, convicted of the offense of manslaughter in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for the term of eight years.
The deceased, shown to have been knocked in the head with a stick or pole, and killed, by defendant (appellant), was one John Lee Harris, but we will make no further comment upon the evidence than to state that it showed that, up until the time immediately preceding the fatal blow, appellant and deceased were upon friendly and neighborly terms. The killing occurred upon a Sunday, and in a remote section of Tuscaloosa county. Appellant's plea, supported by substantial evidence, was self-defense. A bare hint of illicit intoxicating liquor pervades the record, but in such a way that it is not possible to see whether its existence weighed, or should have weighed, in behalf of the state's theory of the homidice, or in behalf of that of appellant. The inescapable impression left by a reading of the evidence in the record is that the killing, justifiable or not, as the jury may in the end find, under proper instructions as to the law, in its last analysis, so to speak, is another of those off-shoots of ignorance, and lack of civilization, that rules to this good day in certain isolated, backward, sections of our commonwealth-among those of the type in our rural localities comparable to the type that compose, in the great metropolitan centers, what is now commonly referred to as "the submerged tenth."
The case was tried by a special judge, and while we doubt for the moment that we are warranted in taking judicial knowledge of the fact that the said distinguished special judge is an able and important member of the faculty of one of the nation's large and influential law schools, yet it is not, we trust, amiss to say that an examination of the record submitted here reveals that the trial was conducted in a manner that would reflect credit upon the most experienced nisi prius judge of the country. The law governing the issues in the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. State
... ... The ... fact that deceased may have had a family is wholly ... immaterial, irrelevant, and impertinent to any issue in the ... case. Melbourne v. State, 51 Fla. 69, 40 So. 189. It ... was held irrelevant in State v. Broughton, 158 La ... 1045, 105 So. 59. Also see Fisher v. State, 23 Ala ... App. 544, 129 So. 303; Thomas v. State, 18 Ala. App ... 268, 90 So. 878 ... 'The ... purpose of an objection being to prevent a question from ... being answered until after a ruling of the court can be ... obtained, it is well settled that it is too late to ... ...
-
Crymes v. State
...was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the appellant's guilt. This rule of law was first stated in Fisher v. State, 23 Ala.App. 544, 129 So. 303 (1930). In that case, the widow testified concerning the number and ages of the children who survived the deceased. The Court noted......
-
Hutto v. State
...panel of jurors to hear this case. 'THE COURT: Motion is denied. 'MR. HAAS: Exception.' Under the rule expressed in Fisher v. State, 23 Ala.App. 544, 129 So. 303, it is error to permit the state to show, over defendant's objection, the number of children left by deceased, their ages, etc. C......
-
Weaver v. State
...Emerson v. State, 30 Ala.App. 248, 4 So.2d 183; Cassemus v. State, 16 Ala.App. 61, 75 So. 267, 268. We also advert to Fisher v. State, 23 Ala.App. 544, 129 So. 303, wherein this court held it was error to overrule appellant's objection to the argument of the solicitor to the jury trying the......