Gardner v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 514 |
| Citation | 40 Ala.App. 276,111 So.2d 916 |
| Parties | Sandy GARDNER v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
K. C. Edwards, Birmingham, for appellant.
John Patterson, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree. His jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in the second degree, and judgment rendered accordingly.
Appellant's motion for a new trial being overruled, appeal was perfected to this court.
The evidence presented tended to show that the appellant had been an employee for a number of years of the Skating Rink Supply Company, operated by Mr. James Smith.
Mr. Smith maintained sleeping quarters in the rear of the building which he and his wife occupied when working at night. On the occasion of this shooting Mr. and Mrs. Smith were out of town.
The appellant, his wife Mamie, and Victoria Moore had gone to the Skating Rink Supply Company building in order that the appellant might process an out of town order, and also to attend two dogs kept there by Mr. and Mrs. Smith.
The two women helped appellant assemble the order. They were joined by the deceased, Willie Poston. The four were friends, and had planned to have supper together. The appellant had a bottle of gin. The deceased took several drinks, the others took one each.
Willie was interested in buying a pistol owned by the appellant which he had loaned Mr. Smith, and which was in the sleeping quarters.
All four went into the sleeping quarters, and appellant obtained the pistol. About this time a long distance call came in for an order of skates. The appellant his wife Mamie went to the front of the building to fill the order, and appellant tossed the pistol and the holster onto a bed.
Willie and Victoria remained in the bedroom.
Hearing loud talk Mamie returned to the bedroom and found Willie and Victoria on a sofa, with Victoria attempting to extricate herself from Willie's embraces.
She reprimanded Willie for his conduct. He arose and told her not to holler at him, at the same time pulling a spring blade knife which he opened.
About this time the appellant returned to the bedroom. Victoria was standing near a rear door, and he told her to open it, and instructed Willie to leave as he was drunk.
The dogs ran out, and Victoria went in pursuit of them, and did not witness the shooting.
The appellant and his wife testified that the appellant had picked the pistol and holster off the bed, and instead of going out the door, Willie turned and gave the appellant a push. He fell over the foot of the bed, and as he did so the pistol discharged. The appellant maintained he did not have his finger on the trigger of the pistol at the time it discharged.
Willie was hit in the side, the bullet apparently severing his spinal cord. He died from the effects of the bullet wound some seven or eight months later.
The appellant summoned the police, and requested an ambulance. He accompanied the deceased to the hospital. There he was interviewed by Mr. C. B. Golden, a Birmingham City detective. That night he told Mr. Golden that he and deceased were standing on a street when a car drove by and someone shot from the car and hit Willie.
The next day he told Mr. Golden that he knew Mr. Golden had not believed his account the night before, and what had actually happened was that he had heard a noise back of the store, had fired through the rear door, and had hit Willie.
Still later he gave another account of the happening to Mr. Golden, this last account being the same as that he gave from the witness stand.
So far as the admission of evidence, this record is absolutely free of error.
However, the appellant requested some thirteen written charges, all of which were refused by the court below.
Charge 13 was affirmative in nature and was properly refused under the developed evidence.
Every homicide is presumed unlawful unless expressly excused or justified by law. A homicide being shown, it is incumbent upon the defendant to show the circumstances in mitigation, excuse, or justification, unless shown by the evidence produced against him. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grady v. State
...and the qualified duty to retreat as essential elements of the defense of self defense, and 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 r......
-
Eddy v. State
...36 Ala.App. 59, 52 So.2d 171; Petty v. State, 40 Ala.App. 151, 110 So.2d 319, cert. denied 269 Ala. 48, 110 So.2d 325; Gardner v. State, 40 Ala.App. 276, 111 So.2d 916. In the instant case, the court fully covered the principle that a guilty verdict could not be returned unless the evidence......
-
Gantt v. State
...the appellant giving different accounts of what happened would be sufficient to present the case to the jury, citing Gardner v. State, 40 Ala.App. 276, 111 So.2d 916 (1959). This court in Gardner "Every homicide is presumed unlawful unless expressly excused or justified by law. A homicide b......
-
Chesser v. Cotton Tractor Co., 4 Div. 362
... ... These assignments in no way question any ruling by the trial court, but attempt to state by way of conclusional assumptions the trial judge's mental processes in arriving at his judgment. This is not a matter reviewable by ... ...