Hainsworth v. State

• Decision Date: 16 April 1903
• Citation: 136 Ala. 13,34 So. 203
• Parties: HAINSWORTH v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

34 So. 203

136 Ala. 13

HAINSWORTH v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 16, 1903

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; Wm. F. Hogue, Special Judge.

Wash Hainsworth was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

On the trial of the case the evidence introduced on the part of the state, tending to connect the defendant with the killing of the deceased, Frank Thomas, was circumstantial. In addition to proving that the defendant and the deceased had a quarrel and the defendant had threatened the deceased, as shown in the opinion, it was further shown that after this quarrel the defendant went to church, and in order to return home from church it was necessary for him to pass by the house of the deceased; that the deceased was shot between 9 and 10 o'clock at night while he was on his front porch; that the shot was fired from behind a chicken house which was in deceased's yard; that this chicken house was between the road which the defendant had to go when returning from church and the house of the deceased. It was further shown that the defendant made false statements to the deputy sheriff who arrested him about his gun and shells; that the gun of the defendant was found hidden in a closet, and not in the place where defendant said he had placed it, and it showed that it had been recently fired; and it was shown that the defendant had shells of the character of those with which the deceased was killed, although he stated he had no such shells. There was evidence of other circumstances introduced by the state tending to connect the defendant with the homicide. It was shown that the deceased was killed by being shot with buckshot from a gun.

Logan Vande Graaff & Logan, for appellant.

Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and W. W. Lavender, for the State.

TYSON J.

At the close of the testimony offered in behalf of the state, the defendant moved the court to exclude all the evidence from the jury upon the ground that it was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty, or to justify the submission of the case to the jury. This motion was overruled, and properly so. Clearly, the evidence was not without tendencies, which, if believed by the jury, would have supported a verdict of guilty. This being true, the defendant, by his motion, could not transfer the burden and duty from the jury to the court of determining its weight or credibility. The motion, as contended, is not the equivalent of a demurrer to the evidence. Had a demurrer been interposed instead of the motion, and issue been joined upon it, the court would have been bound to have rendered a judgment of conviction upon it. The trial of the case would, of course, have been at an end. Martin v. State, 62 Ala. 240; Brister v. State, 26 Ala. 127; Bryan v. State, Id. 65.

The evidence tends to show that deceased was shot at night between 9 and 10 o'clock, while on the front porch of his residence. Some four or five hours previous to the homicide, he and the defendant had a difficulty at or near the home of the former. The wife of deceased testified that defendant said to deceased, upon his leaving the place of the difficulty, "I'll get you, you grand rascal." The evidence further tends to show that defendant, shortly after the difficulty, attended a prayer meeting, which was in a church about a mile distant from his home and the home of deceased. The state, against his objection, was permitted to prove the facial expression of defendant while at the prayer meeting, some two hours before the homicide was committed. It is urged that this evidence was inadmissible because too remote--that it called for the appearance of defendant before the homicide was committed, and was so far removed from it as to form no part of the res gestæ of the act of killing. We think this position wholly untenable. We can see no good reason why the facial expression of the defendant, while forming the design, if he did so, to assassinate in the night-time his neighbor, should not be introduced in evidence against him. If his countenance was such as to indicate that he was contemplating the commission of the offense, it is a fact which the prosecution is entitled to have go to the jury, along with all the criminating circumstances in the case. Whether or not the expressions of his face indicated that he was contemplating the commission of the crime was, of course, for the jury, as likewise was the value of such evidence, depending, of course, upon its connection with other evidence criminatory or exculpatory.

In Blount v. State, 49 Ala. 381, 384, the assault with which the defendants were charged was committed on persons having in custody one Floyd. These persons, with their prisoner, had stopped at the house of Brasil. The defendants came to Brasil's, and were busily talking together, but of what they were talking the witness could not say. A short time after this, and within about a quarter of a mile of Brasil's, the assault was made, the defendants being the assailing party. The defendants objected and excepted to the admission of the evidence that they were busily talking together. The court said: "The evidence was properly admitted. The conduct, demeanor, and expressions of the accused at or about the time of the offense with which he is charged are always admissible evidence. Their value is to...