Fuller v. State

• Decision Date: 08 June 1898
• Citation: 23 So. 688,117 Ala. 36
• Parties: FULLER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

23 So. 688

117 Ala. 36

FULLER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 8, 1898

Appeal from Cleburne county court; D. C. Blackwell, Special Judge.

L. J Fuller was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

The appellant, L. J. Fuller, was indicted and tried for murder was convicted of murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary of 30 years. The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant was superintending some work in a field, where a mule was being driven to a stump-pulling machine; that the deceased, Thomas Henry, had been employed to drive the mule; that L. J. Fuller discharged said Henry, who thereupon went to one Scott, from whom the mule was rented, and about an hour after being discharged by the defendant. Fuller, said Henry returned, and gave to Fuller an order from Henry, which instructed him to "let the bearer, Tom Henry, drive my mule until you hear from me further. If this does not suit you, send the mule home." This order was signed by Scott, the owner of the mule. The defendant declined to let Henry drive the mule, and, upon Henry starting to unhitch him, a difficulty between the defendant and Henry ensued, in which the defendant cut Henry with a knife, from the effects of which would he died in a few hours. The difficulty was between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning, and Henry died about 12 o'clock. One Sam Teal was introduced as a witness for the state, and testified, among other things, that when he saw the defendant and the deceased engaged in the difficulty, he ran to them and found the defendant lying upon the deceased, who was on the ground; that he was instrumental in getting the defendant off of the deceased, and that the defendant rose with a knife in his hand, dripping with blood, and there was blood on the defendant's hand; that Tom Henry rose from the ground and, reaching down by his side or in his pocket, pulled therefrom something, and threw at the defendant. This witness further testified that after the difficulty he went to the place where the killing occurred, and about 10 feet from where the deceased and the defendant were fighting, and in the direction in which the missile had been thrown, he found a knife, which he identified as the knife which had belonged to Tom Henry. This knife was offered in evidence. The defendant objected to this knife being introduced in evidence, upon the ground that it had not been properly identified. This objection was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. Another witness for the state testified that just after the killing he assisted in the arrest of the defendant; that there were no threats made or inducements offered, or anything said to the defendant to invite him to make a statement or declaration, but that while with the defendant he told him that he cut Tom Henry with his knife, and that he was sorry for it. The defendant objected to this testimony, and moved the court to exclude it upon the ground that the statement by the defendant was not shown to have been voluntary. This objection was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. The only rulings of the trial court presented for review on the present appeal are the rulings upon the evidence, and the facts pertaining to the other rulings, as here presented, are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Merrill & Bridges, for appellant.

Wm. C. Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.

COLEMAN J.

The defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. Several exceptions were reserved to the ruling of the court upon the admission of evidence, and which are presented for our consideration by appeal. In some instances the same principle of law applies to more than one exception. In such cases a decision will be made only upon one of the exceptions.

The objection that the knife offered in evidence was not sufficiently identified was properly overruled. There was evidence tending to show the ownership of the knife, and its possession. The weight of the evidence was for the jury.

The witness for the prosecution, Sam Teal, prepared a diagram or plat of the place where the homicide occurred. He testified it was practically correct, and the diagram was admitted in evidence without objection. Subsequently another witness was examined with reference to the position of the parties as shown by the diagram. This witness also stated that he knew the location, and that the diagram was practically correct. Defendant objected to his examination relative to the diagram on the grounds that the diagram was neither prepared by the witness nor in his presence, and upon the further ground that it had not been sufficiently shown that the diagram was correct. Neither ground of objection is tenable, and there was no error in overruling the objection.

The defendant objected to the statement of a witness that he heard the...