Gholston v. State, 8 Div. 193.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtBOULDIN, J.
Citation130 So. 69,221 Ala. 556
Docket Number8 Div. 193.
Decision Date05 June 1930
PartiesGHOLSTON v. STATE.

130 So. 69

221 Ala. 556

GHOLSTON
v.
STATE.

8 Div. 193.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 5, 1930


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.

BOULDIN, J.

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 [130 So. 70.] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Peterson v. State, 6 Div. 130.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 29, 1933
    ...to affect their verdict," which includes matters pertinent to enable the party to advisedly make peremptory challenge. Gholston v. State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 So. 69. Defendant's counsel sought no exercise of this right of examination, and there is nothing to indicate the juror Dugger would no......
  • Ross v. Massachusetts, No. 73-5273
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1973
    ...United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201, 227 Note 35 (CA2 1950), aff'd, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951); Gholston v. State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 So. 69 (1930); State v. Higgs, 143 Conn. 138, 120 A.2d 152 (1956); Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 So. 837 (1898); Herndon v. State, 1......
  • Cox v. Roberts, 6 Div. 390.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 17, 1946
    ...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. In view of the foregoing, we hold that t......
  • Beecher v. State, 8 Div. 208
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1966
    ...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. It is within the discretion of the trial judge as to whether he will question the venire of jurors as to matters which tend to show in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Peterson v. State, 6 Div. 130.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 29, 1933
    ...to affect their verdict," which includes matters pertinent to enable the party to advisedly make peremptory challenge. Gholston v. State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 So. 69. Defendant's counsel sought no exercise of this right of examination, and there is nothing to indicate the juror Dugger would no......
  • Ross v. Massachusetts, No. 73-5273
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1973
    ...United States v. Dennis, 183 F.2d 201, 227 Note 35 (CA2 1950), aff'd, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S.Ct. 857, 95 L.Ed. 1137 (1951); Gholston v. State, 221 Ala. 556, 130 So. 69 (1930); State v. Higgs, 143 Conn. 138, 120 A.2d 152 (1956); Pinder v. State, 27 Fla. 370, 8 So. 837 (1898); Herndon v. State, 1......
  • Cox v. Roberts, 6 Div. 390.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 17, 1946
    ...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. In view of the foregoing, we hold that t......
  • Beecher v. State, 8 Div. 208
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1966
    ...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. It is within the discretion of the trial judge as to whether he will question the venire of jurors as to matters which tend to show in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT