Goodwin v. State, 8 Div. 468
| Decision Date | 08 June 1937 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 468 |
| Citation | 175 So. 415,27 Ala.App. 493 |
| Parties | GOODWIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; A.E. Hawkins, Judge.
Burley Goodwin was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Claud D. Scruggs, of Guntersville, for appellant.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The homicide complained of in this case occurred on the night in question at a public dance in a roadhouse known and called "The Bloody Bucket," where a large throng of people were assembled, resulting in there having been ordered summoned a large number of witnesses to attend the trial and testify.
The indictment charged this appellant with the offense of murder in the second degree, in that, he unlawfully and with malice aforethought killed Marvin Lusk by cutting or stabbing him with a knife, but without premeditation or deliberation, etc. The trial resulted in the conviction of the defendant of manslaughter in the first degree and his punishment was fixed by the jury at eight years' imprisonment. The court duly sentenced him to the penitentiary for said term and pronounced and entered judgment of conviction accordingly from which this appeal was taken.
The corpus delicti was proven without conflict; that is to say there is no dispute in the evidence as to the material allegation that Marvin Lusk came to his death as the result of having been cut or stabbed with a knife by this appellant (defendant below). The controlling question is, therefore, was such killing an unlawful homicide as contended by the State, or, was the defendant justified in taking the life of deceased as contended by him under his plea of self-defense?
The State insisted that the killing was unprovoked, unjustified, and hence unlawful, and offered testimony to sustain this insistence. On the other hand, the defendant insisted, under his plea of self-defense, that he took the life of Lusk in order to save his own life and that in so doing he violated no law of the State; and in this connection offered testimony of numerous witnesses tending to sustain him in this insistence. As a result of the foregoing conflict in the evidence, a jury question was, of course, presented.
On this appeal appellant relies upon numerous insistences of error for reversal of the judgment and has assigned errors based upon some 75 distinct grounds. Each of the questions thus presented has had our attentive and careful consideration. We shall, however, refrain from a detailed discussion of all of these numerous points of decision as not being necessary. We will advert and confine ourselves to those questions which in our opinion control this appeal, and likewise necessary to a conclusion.
The first question presented, and made the basis of several of the assignments of error, is the action of the court in refusing to grant the defendant's motion to continue the case on account of the absence of several of his witnesses, and, further, for lack of time to properly prepare his case.
The refusal of the court to grant a continuance of the case upon motion of defendant, because of the absence of certain witnesses, is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Such action will not be revised, unless it clearly appears that, in the exercise of this discretion, the court abused same to the injury of defendant's substantial rights. Here no such abuse is apparent. As indicated by the showings offered and admitted, the testimony sought was merely cumulative of that given by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...Ala. 694, 220 So.2d 882; Divine v. State, 279 Ala. 291, 184 So.2d 628; Pounders v. State, 55 Ala.App. 204, 314 So.2d 123; Goodwin v. State, 27 Ala.App. 493, 175 So. 415. The appellant relies heavily on Stovall v. State, 46 Ala.App. 181, 239 So.2d 323, wherein this court observed that where ......
-
Moore v. State, 6 Div. 939.
... ... the facts and circumstances adduced, it can be reasonably ... inferred. Goodwin v. State, 27 Ala.App. 493, 175 So ... 415; Smith v. State, 21 Ala.App. 497, 109 So. 530; ... Wilkins v. State, 29 Ala.App ... 349, 197 So. 75; Snead v. State, Ala.Sup., 8 So.2d ... 269. And we, upon first reading the record, were brought ... under the spell of this ... ...
-
Crow v. State
...evidence, and the proof is sufficient if, from the facts and circumstances adduced, it can be reasonably inferred. Goodwin v. State, 27 Ala.App. 493, 175 So. 415; Smith v. State, 21 Ala.App. 497, 109 So. 530; McGrew v. State, 21 Ala.App. 266, 107 So. 328; Palmer v. State, 168 Ala. 124, 53 S......
-
Segars v. State, 6 Div. 701
...836 (1953). Venue need not be proven by direct evidence, but evidence from which venue may be inferred is sufficient. Goodwin v. State, 27 Ala.App. 493, 175 So. 415 (1937). Venue may be established by the testimony of one witness. Wilson v. State, 384 So.2d 1243 Consequently, we hold that t......