Griffin v. State, 1 Div. 827.
| Decision Date | 20 December 1934 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 827. |
| Citation | 229 Ala. 482,158 So. 316 |
| Parties | GRIFFIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; F. W. Hare, Judge.
Willie Griffin was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Pitts & Pitts, of Selma, J. D. Ratcliffe, of Monroeville, and G. O Dickey, of Evergreen, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., and H. M. Caffey, Jr., Sol., of Brewton, for the State.
The trial court, as well as the jury, was warranted, from the state's evidence and theory of the homicide, in finding that there was a conspiracy between this defendant, his uncle, Bonner Griffin, and cousin, Roy Griffin, to visit the store of Williamson, where the killing occurred, to renew with the deceased, Mixon, or avenge, the former difficulty between Roy Griffin and said deceased, Mixon; that Roy and others left the store shortly after the first difficulty and returned to or towards the home of Bonner Griffin, where they met or came in contact with Bonner Griffin and the defendant, and it could well be inferred that the latter were informed of the previous difficulty and immediately went to the Williamson Store, where the deceased was, for the purpose of renewing the difficulty or, in fact, for the purpose of killing the deceased, Roy going in the front entrance to the store, and the defendant and Bonner Griffin, being heavily armed, entering the store from the rear, when the said defendant immediately shot the deceased, who, according to the state's evidence, was making no hostile demonstration and was not at the time engaged in an altercation.
There being evidence establishing a conspiracy, the trial court did not err in admitting what was said by Bonner immediately after the shooting while in the store or immediately after they left the store, as it was not only a part of the res gestæ but was in the presence and hearing of the defendant. Nor was there error in permitting the state to prove that Roy drew a pistol, upon returning to the store, and just before the killing.
The trial court excluded all details of the former difficulty, and merely permitted the witnesses to show that shots were fired and which merely went to the nature or gravity of same. White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709. There was no proof as to who fired the shots or the result of same. Moreover, the witnesses both for the state and defendant, without objection, referred generally to the first and second as having first heard two shots and later one shot, thus distinguishing the two difficulties by the number of shots fired.
When Bishop Williamson was on the stand, after testifying as to the entire transaction, and that Roy Griffin exhibited a pistol, he was asked on recross-examination:
We also think it was immaterial to show the depth of the pocket of the witness Williamson. Counsel may have meant the pocket of Roy, but such was not the question proposed. Next:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Young
...who goes to the aid of a third person does so at his own peril (e. g., Thompson v. State, 37 Ala.App. 446, 70 So.2d 282; Griffin v. State, 229 Ala. 482, 158 So. 316; Commonwealth v. Hounchell, 280 Ky. 217, 132 S.W.2d 921; McHargue v. Commonwealth, 231 Ky. 82, 21 S.W.2d 115; State v. Best, 9......
-
Hall v. State, 5 Div. 357
...of the res gestae, in which event they are a part of a continuous transaction.' See also, Smith v. State, 52 Ala. 407; Griffin v. State, 229 Ala. 482, 158 So. 316; Ganus v. State, supra; Caraway v. State, 20 Ala.App. 362, 101 So. 912; Whigham v. State, 20 Ala.App. 129, 101 So. 98; Roberts v......
-
Williams v. State
...of the lesser offense. V We find no error in any of the trial judge's comments during the course of the trial. In Griffin v. State, 229 Ala. 482, 158 So. 316 (1934), the Supreme Court of Alabama held '. . . Had counsel objected or excepted to the remark, the court would no doubt have withdr......
-
Collier v. State
...In other words, the one invoking self-defense in protection of a third person is placed in the shoes of such third person. Griffin v. State, 229 Ala. 482, 158 So. 316. Whether the killing of another was justified as an act of self-defense is a question for the jury. Turner v. State, 160 Ala......