Hammell v. State
| Citation | 21 Ala.App. 633,111 So. 191 |
| Decision Date | 18 January 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 153 |
| Parties | HAMMELL v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.
Will Hammell was convicted of manslaughter in the first decree and he appeals. Affirmed.
W.C Davis and R.A. Cooner, both of Jasper, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The indictment charged murder. The verdict of the jury acquitted the defendant of the murder charge and found him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree. This finding eliminates from this appeal a consideration of those questions affecting the charge of murder.
The defendant, while driving an automobile along the public road, ran said automobile against Arthur Blanton, a pedestrian on the road, inflicting injuries from which he died. The record contains the testimony of many witnesses, but practically all of the testimony is cumulative, tending to establish a few simple facts from which the jury should make up their verdict.
The testimony for the state, after proof of the homicide, tended to show that the defendant was driving his automobile along the highway, and at a place where people were congregated, in an unlawful and reckless manner, and in violation of section 6267 of the Code of 1923, which reads as follows:
The evidence for the defendant was to the contrary.
By this section of the Code the Legislature has placed in the hands of the juries of the state the duty of ascertaining from the facts in each particular case, whether an automobile is being driven recklessly. The prohibition fixed by the statute is against reckless driving, determinable not alone by speed, but by the surrounding circumstances, manner of driving, mental and physical condition of the driver, etc. This fact, under the evidence, was a question for the jury and was submitted to them under instructions from the court. The penalty for reckless driving is fixed by section 3328 of the Code of 1923.
The first question after proof of the corpus delicti is, Was the defendant at the time of the killing guilty of reckless driving? If so, and as a proximate result deceased received injuries from which he died, the crime was manslaughter. Crisp v. State (Ala.Sup.) 109 So. 287.
If the act causing the death of young Blanton was unlawful either at common law or by statute, and the result was unintentional, the defendant would only be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree. Crisp v. State, supra; Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 33; Sawyer v State, 20 Ala.App. 504, 103 So. 309; McBride v. State, 20 Ala.App. 434, 102 So....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...affirmative charge. The following authorities are convincing and in our view controlling. Reynolds v. State, supra; Hammell v. State, 21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191; Graham v. State, 27 Ala.App. 505, 176 So. Rainey v. State, 245 Ala. 458, 17 So.2d 687; Williams v. State, 17 Ala.App. 285, 84 S......
-
Harris v. State
...The following authorities sustain our opinion: Reynolds v. State, supra; Rainey v. State, supra; Jones v. State, supra; Hammell v. State, 21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191; Williams v. State, 17 Ala.App. 285, 84 So. Neither are we convinced that we should disturb the ruling of the trial judge in......
-
Wilson v. State
... ... intention to take life necessary in a prosecution for this ... crime.' See, also, Crisp v. State, 215 Ala. 2, ... 3, 109 So. 287, and in connection therewith Crisp v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 449, 109 So. 282; Sawyer v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 504, 103 So. 309; Hammell v ... State, 21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191 ... Appellant ... in brief of counsel cites Barnett v. State, 27 ... Ala.App. 277, 171 So. 293. It is true that this court held in ... the Barnett case, supra, that the evidence did not warrant a ... finding by the jury of guilt of ... ...
-
Rainey v. State, 7 Div. 763.
...the theory was declared, without undertaking to be precise in expressing all the elements of a wanton killing. See, also Hammell v. State, 21 Ala.App. 633, 111 So. 191. is of course a distinction in the operation of the mind between a willful injury and a wanton injury, but they are usually......