Ford v. State, 6 Div. 409.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 409. |
| Citation | 33 Ala.App. 134,30 So.2d 582 |
| Parties | FORD v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Wm. Conway, of Birmingham, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The difficulty depicted by the evidence in this case which finally resulted in the death of William Henry Mason, the deceased named in the indictment, originated in the home of State witness James Williams, and was a continuous transaction throughout to its conclusion. Therefore, under the law, everything that was said or done in connection therewith constituted the res gestae. The trial court properly so held, thus rendering inapt the numerous insistences of error argued by appellant in this connection. The contentions of appellant to the contrary are wholly without merit and cannot be sustained.
The corpus delicti was clearly established by the evidence. Numerous witnesses testified they saw the defendant stab the deceased in the region of his heart with a large switch blade knife, and the evidence tends to show conclusively that he died a few minutes thereafter. These facts are without dispute or conflict. Slaughter v. State, 21 Ala.App 211, 106 So. 891; Ray v. State, Ala.Sup., 27 So.2d 873; Rowe v. State, 243 Ala. 618, 11 So.2d 749.
The only evidence offered by the defendant was his own testimony. He made no denial of having inflicted the knife wound upon the deceased, but did insist (1) that it was accidentally done during a tussle with Mason, (2) that it was in self defense. The conflict in the evidence thus engendered, made questions for the jury to determine.
The indictment charged murder in the first degree, and the trial thereon resulted in the conviction of the defendant for murder in the second degree and the jury fixed his punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for twenty years.
We do not deem it necessary to here recite, or state the facts in full incident to the difficulty. It would engender an interminable effort, and could serve no good purpose.
Under the evidence as stated it was the prerogative of the jury to determine whether or not the death wound was the result of an accident, or whether or not it was done in self defense.
The trial court delivered a most excellent oral charge to the jury. It was full, complete and fair in every way and every phase of the governing law was fully and explicitly stated. There was no phase...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lovett v. State
...removed in point of time from the actual engagement" where the accused assaulted the victim around suppertime); Ford v. State, 33 Ala.App. 134, 135, 30 So.2d 582, 583 (1947) ("The difficulty ... originated in the home of State witness James Williams, and was a continuous transaction through......
-
Grady v. State
...it was properly refused. Gardner v. State, 40 Ala.App. 276, 111 So.2d 916; Cauley v. State, 33 Ala.App. 557, 36 So.2d 347; Ford v. State, 33 Ala.App. 134, 30 So.2d 582. Charge 34 is similar in most respects to Charge 7 in Bowman v. State, 35 Ala.App. 420, 47 So.2d 657, in which the court 'I......
-
Petty v. State
...of the charge is further justified by its omission of any reference to freedom from fault in bringing on the difficulty. Ford v. State, 33 Ala.App. 134, 30 So.2d 582; Cauley v. State, 33 Ala.App. 557, 36 So.2d 347; Coleman v. State, 37 Ala.App. 406, 69 So.2d Further, the charge states an ab......
-
Griffin v. State
...of the charge is further justified by its omission of any reference to freedom from fault in bringing on the difficulty. Ford v. State, 33 Ala.App. 134, 30 So.2d 582; Cauley v. State, 33 Ala.App. 557, 36 So.2d 347; Coleman v. State, 37 Ala.App. 406, 69 So.2d 'Further, the charge states an a......