Hall v. State, 6 Div. 638.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 638. |
| Citation | 38 So.2d 612,34 Ala.App. 246 |
| Parties | HALL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
H. M. Abercrombie and Neal C. Newell, both of Birmingham, for appellant.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The following charges were refused to defendant:
'4. The court charges the jury that, if after looking at all the evidence in this case, your minds are left in a state of doubt, or uncertainty, as to whether the defendant is guilty as charged, then you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and in that event you cannot convict the defendant.
'7. The Court charges the jury that if there is one single fact proven to the satisfaction of the jury, which is inconsistent with defendant's guilt, this is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, and the jury should acquit the defendant.
'11. The Court charges the jury that it is the law of this State that a person has a right to protect herself from a real or reasonably apparent felonious assault upon herself by another, and if on considering the evidence in this case or any part of it, when considered with the whole evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was justified in stabbing the deceased to defend herself from an assault, it would be your duty to find the defendant not guilty.
'12. The court charges the jury that if they are reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this case, that the deceased had threatened to take the life of the defendant, and that such threat was made within the hearing and presence of the defendant, before or at the time of the fatal encounter, then this defendant, on the occasion of the killing, would have been authorized and justified in taking more prompt and decisive means of defense than if such threats had never made against her, provided the defendant was without fault in bringing on the difficulty, or entered willingly therein, and her life at the time was in imminent peril, or reasonable appeared to be in imminent peril, and she honestly believed that her life was in imminent peril, and under such circumstances as just stated the defendant was under no duty to retreat if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this case that the deceased was at the time about to make an immediate and murderous attack upon the defendant, or the defendant reasonably and honestly believed that the deceased was about to make such an attack upon her.
'13. I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that a person may repel force by force in defense of her person against one who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or surprise to take her life, and if the defendant in this case was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty and did not enter the fight willingly, and in good faith believed that she was in imminent peril, she was under no obligation to retreat and under such circumstances the defendant had a right to use whatever force was reasonable necessary to repel such an attack.
'14. The court charges the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the deceased, Louis Eugene Hall, advanced upon the defendant with a brick or brick bat or other dangerous weapon, and the defendant as a reasonable and prudent person anticipated great danger of bodily harm to herself and that the stabbed the deceased to prevent this danger or bodily harm, then the defendant would not be guilty.
Upon the trial of this case in the court below numerous exceptions were reserved by the defendant to adverse rulings of the trial court. As the law requires, Title 15, Section 389, Code of Alabama 1940, we have 'consider[ed] all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions'. Many of these questions are so clearly free of error as to need no discussion.
The indictment charged the defendant with the offense of murder in the first degree, to which indictment a plea of not guilty was interposed. The trial below resulted in the conviction of the defendant for the offense of murder in the second degree, and the jury fixed the punishment at imprisonment for a period of fifteen years. The trial court duly adjudged the defendant guilty and in accordance with the verdict of the jury sentenced her to imprisonment in the penitentiary for fifteen years. From said judgment of conviction, this appeal was taken.
The defendant made a motion to continue the case, and excepted to the action of the court in denying the motion. The granting or refusing of said motion was within the sound discretion of the trial court. The grounds upon which the motion for a continuance is based have been examined, and we accord to the action of the court in holding said grounds were insufficient to order a continuation of the cause.
We gather from the oral argument of able and earnest counsel for appellant upon the submission of this case in this court and, also from appellant's briefs here filed, that the principal insistence of error relied upon for a reversal of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. State, 8 Div. 749
...Ala.App. 314, 184 So. 206; Parsons v. State, 32 Ala.App. 266, 25 So.2d 44; Brown v. State, 33 Ala.App. 97, 31 So.2d 670; Hall v. State, 34 Ala.App. 246, 38 So.2d 612. The killing occurred on the streets of Guntersville, Alabama. At this place the defendant was not relieved of the duty to re......
-
Burnett v. State
... ... State, 36 807 So.2d 577 Ala.App. 606, 61 So.2d 137 (1952); Hall v. State, 34 Ala.App. 246, 38 So.2d 612 (1949). If there is any proof, ... more culpability than "simple negligence." The commentary to § 13A-6-4, Ala.Code 1975, states the following concerning the degree of ... ...
-
Hollis v. State
...on the deceased, is one of fact for the jury. Dismukes, supra; Gurley v. State, 36 Ala.App. 606, 61 So.2d 137 (1952); Hall v. State, 34 Ala.App. 246, 38 So.2d 612 (1949). If there is any proof, direct or circumstantial, to establish the corpus delicti, the issue is one of fact for the jury ......
-
Dismukes v. State
...sufficient to authorize the jury to conclude that the deceased had died as a result of the pistol wounds. See also Hall v. State, 34 Ala.App. 246, 38 So.2d 612 (1949) ("Under these undisputed facts no experts were necessary to prove the cause of his death; and certainly the jury was not req......