Gholston v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 193. |
| Parties | GHOLSTON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 9, 1930.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; F. E. St. John, Special Judge.
Frank Gholston was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
William Stell and W. H. Key, Jr., both of Russellville, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Frank Gholston was indicted for the murder of Ed Tidwell by shooting him with a pistol, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at life imprisonment.
It is the duty of the trial court, under Code, § 8645, to ascertain the qualifications of jurors under Code, §§ 8610, 8612. We have commended the practice of following these statutes in questioning jurors. Mays v. State, 218 Ala. 656, 120 So. 163.
Usually this is sufficient. A further examination on the part of the court is in his discretion. Code, § 8614; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Young, 168 Ala. 551, 53 So. 213.
Code, § 8662, confers upon the parties the right, under the direction of the court, to further examine the jurors within proper bounds to ascertain "any matter that might tend to affect their verdict." This, we have held, includes pertinent matters to enable the party to advisedly make peremptory challenges. Rose v. Magro (Ala Sup.) 124 So. 296. But this section does not empower the party to require the court to put such questions to the jury even when properly framed.
The court having, so far as appears, performed the duty of qualifying the jurors, there was no error in his refusal on request of defendant "to ask each juror whether or not he would give defendant, Frank Gholston, a negro, the same justice, and would not be biased against him on account of his race."
The testimony of J. C. Tyra, the only eyewitness for the state, tended to show that while he and the deceased, both deputy sheriffs, were driving on the highway from Rockwood toward Russellville about 11 o'clock at night, they were signaled to stop. Thereupon three negroes, Frank Gholston, Tom Sargent, and Ernest Graham approached their car. Tyra saw Gholston had a fruit jar and accosted him as to its contents. He threw it down and ran. It was home-brew. Promptly Tyra arrested Graham, nearest the car, while Sargent started to the rear. At the same time Officer Tidwell got out on the other side of the car and proceeded to the rear. Presently, while Tyra was putting Graham in the car, a shot was fired and Tidwell exclaimed he was killed. Tyra turned and killed Sargent, who was firing a thirty-eight pistol. Tidwell received a fatal bullet wound in the side and a wound in the nose. Tyra received three wounds, two from front and one in the back.
The controverted issue of fact was whether defendant, Gholston, participated in the shooting. Tyra did not see him after he ran. Dying declarations of Officer Tidwell were that defendant fired the shot which inflicted the wound on Tidwell's nose. Tyra's testimony further tended to show shots came from two directions; that defendant and Sargent went in different directions; that Graham took no part.
Over defendant's objection, the state was permitted to put in evidence the coat worn by Tyra at the time, have Tyra put it on, and exhibit the bullet holes, including one in the back. In this there was no error. The bullet holes in the coat were corroborative of the testimony tending to show defendant's participation in the shooting.
While the admission of article having no relation to the crime and bearing no marks tending to establish any fact in connection therewith, but merely tending to arouse resentment in the minds of the jury, is erroneous, no such consideration must stand in the way of proving physical facts tending to establish any material circumstance in the case. Rollings v. State, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329; Hyche v State, 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906; Id., 22 Ala. App. 176, 113 So. 644; Terry v. State, 203 Ala. 99, 82 So. 113; Husch v. State, 211 Ala. 274, 100 So. 321; Boyette v. State, 215 Ala. 472, 100 So. 812; Crenshaw v. State, 207 Ala. 438, 93 So. 465; Puckett v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Roberts
... ... question as to the sufficiency of the evidence going to prove ... agency. We cannot say in view of this state of the record ... that the verdict for the defendant was not based on the ... finding by the jury that the plaintiff had not proven that ... Mrs ... that might tend to affect their verdict,' it does not ... empower the party to require the court to put such questions ... to the jury. Gholston v. State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 ... So. 69; Ballard v. State, 236 Ala. 541, 184 So. 260; ... Leach v. State, 245 Ala. 539, 18 So.2d 289 ... ...
-
Ward v. State
...reflected the spirit of § 52. Aaron v. State, 273 Ala. 337, 139 So.2d 309; Burns v. State, 226 Ala. 117, 145 So. 436; Gholston v. State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 So. 69; Rose v. Magro, 220 Ala. 120, 124 So. 296; Smith v. State, 36 Ala.App. 624, 61 So.2d 698 (reversed on another point 258 Ala. 86, ......
-
Beecher v. State
...which the court refused to ask. Sims v. Struthers, 267 Ala. 80, 100 So.2d 23; Ballard v. State,236 Ala. 541, 184 So. 260; Gholston v. State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 So. 69. It is within the discretion of the trial judge as to whether he will question the venire of jurors as to matters which tend ......
-
Redus v. State
... ... dire examination of jurors as to qualification and the course ... and extent thereof is largely within the court's ... discretion. Rose v. Magro, 220 Ala. 120, 124 So ... 296; Code 1940, T. 30, § 55, Subsection 3; Hendry v ... State, 215 Ala. 635, 112 So. 212; Gholston v ... State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 So. 69. In the qualification by ... the court and the information sought thereby, and the further ... examination by the solicitor, herein set out, there was no ... abuse of the sound discretion as a part of the voir dire ... examination of the panel from which ... ...