Hardley v. State

Decision Date16 May 1918
Docket Number6 Div. 699
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; O. Kyle, Judge.

Walter Hardley, alias, was convicted of murder in the first degree and he appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 450, Act of April 18, 1911. Affirmed.

Paine Denson, of Cullman, and J.N. Powell, of Falkville, for appellant.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A.A. Griffith, of Cullman, for the State.


The indictment was for murder in the first degree. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in which the death penalty was imposed. The questions for decision are: (1) The sufficiency of the judgment entry; (2) the overruling of defendant's motion for a change of venue; and (3) the refusal of a written charge requested by the defendant.

This record shows that the trial was had on defendant's plea of not guilty, thus showing his arraignment on the indictment under which the trial was had. Howard v. State, 165 Ala. 18, 27, 50 So. 954; Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 16 Sup.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097; Code, 1907, § 7565; Bush v. State, 12 Ala.App. 260, 263, 67 So. 847.

No question was raised before the trial court as to the sufficiency of the venire for either the grand or the petit jury, nor as to the regularity of the organization of the regular juries for the week or term at which the case was tried, nor as to the correctness of the order of the court for a special venire, or of that fixing a day for the trial of the defendant. Upon appeal, such proceedings are presumed to have been regular and legal; and the statute declares that the transcript must not contain the same. Gen. Acts 1915, p 708; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Burks v. State, 73 So. 824; Price v. State, 14 Ala.App. 89, 71 So. 972.

It has been recently declared that in trials for capital felonies objections to the impaneling of the jury must be taken in the trial court, and exceptions duly reserved to the rulings thereon, in order that the rulings may be presented for review on appeal (Hendley v. State, 76 So. 904; Brassell v. State, 91 Ala. 45, 8 So. 679), because the drawing and organization of the jury is presumed to be correct where its recital is omitted from the record ( Tipton v. State, 140 Ala. 39, 37 So. 231; Hatch's Case, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113;. Harrell v. State, 160 Ala. 91, 49 So. 805; Gen.Acts 1915, p. 708). In Patton v. State, [1] due objection was interposed and exception reserved to the ruling of the trial court on the motion to quash the venire, compelling the defendant to select a jury from a venire of less than 50 jurors. Similarly due exception was reserved in Hardaman v. State, 14 Ala.App. 27, 70 So. 961, for the failure to comply with the statutory requirements as to setting the cause for trial, entering an order requiring the sheriff to serve a copy of the indictment on the defendant, and showing service of the venire upon which he was tried on the defendant.

This record and the judgment entry therein are sufficient, under the statute, in respect to the order for a special venire, and the drawing, organization, and impaneling of the jury for the defendant's trial in the absence of due objection made and exception taken in the trial court. Paitry v. State, supra; Gen.Acts 1915, p. 708; Hendley v. State, supra.

It will be noted that Kinnebrew v. State, 132 Ala. 8, 31 So. 567, and Burton v. State, 115 Ala. 1, 22 So. 585, were decisions under Code 1896, § 4325. The original statute did not contain the words, "nor the order of the court for a special venire or fixing a day for the trial of the defendant." The latter clause of this quoted provision was introduced by the act of 1915 as an amendment to section 6256 of the Code of 1907.

The record now shows a sufficient order of the trial court for a copy of the indictment and of the venire to be forwith served by the sheriff on the defendant, as required by section 32, Gen.Acts 1909, pp. 305, 319, as amendatory of section 7840 of the Code.

A careful consideration of the evidence submitted on the motion for a change of venue convinces us that no error was committed in the overruling of the motion. It is unnecessary to review that evidence. Seams v. State, 84 Ala. 410, 4 So. 521; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37, 7 So. 302; Posey v. State, 73 Ala. 490; Godau v. State, 179 Ala. 27, 60 So. 908; McDaniels v. State, 162 Ala. 25, 50 So. 324; McClain v. State, 182 Ala. 67, 78, 62 So. 241; Gen.Acts Sp.Sess.1909, p. 212, amendatory of section 7851 of the Code of 1907.

There is no merit in defendant's objections and exceptions reserved on the introduction of the evidence. The defendant should have described his position and the circumstances under which he fired the fatal shot, to afford basis for inference by the jury that it reasonably appeared to the defendant that he was in peril to life or limb, and that he could not extricate himself from such situation without increasing that peril.

The cartridges or shells found within a few feet of the door of the deceased, near the place of the shooting, were of evidential value, for the consideration of the jury along with all the other evidence; notwithstanding they were not shown to fit the defendant's pistol. The cartridges or shells were shown to be those of a 32-caliber automatic Colt's pistol, and the evidence did not show the make kind, or caliber of the pistol with which the deceased was killed. While it is true that the defendant may have had witness Bullard's 38 Smith & Wesson pistol with him on the night of the killing, yet this would not conclusively show that he did not also have a 32 automatic Colt's pistol, with which he killed the deceased. Moreover, the defendant testified that he shot deceased with a 32 automatic pistol, that it would shoot nine times, and that the shells would fall out when it was shot. Considered in connection with this testimony, the evidence in question tended to show defendant's location when he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Anderson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1922
    ...the same. No good purpose would be subserved by reviewing the evidence or the decisions of this court on the question. Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362. defendant's plea of "not guilty by reason of insanity," the issue presented gives much latitude both to the defendant and the sta......
  • Vernon v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • May 18, 1944
    ... ... and legal." ... See, ... also, Supreme Court Rule 27, Code 1940, Tit. 7, Appendix ... Under ... the provisions of section 380, supra, and Rule 27, supra, the ... matters complained of cannot be raised for the first time on ... appeal. Hardley v. State, 202 [245 Ala. 637] Ala ... 24, 79 So. 362; Scott v. State, 228 Ala. 509, 154 ... So. 113; Hines v. State, 238 Ala. 575, 192 So. 423; ... Catrett v. State, 25 Ala.App. 331, 334, 146 So. 287 ... It is ... further alleged in the motion, as a conclusion of the ... pleader, ... ...
  • Whittle v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 27, 1921
    ...his trial. Upon appeal it is "presumed to have been regular." Acts 1915, pp. 708, 709, amending section 6256 of Code 1907; Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362; Clayton v. State, 78 So. 462; Anderson State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; McPherson ......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1919
    ...the trial was had, resulting in a verdict of "guilty of murder in the first degree and *** life sentence to the penitentiary." Hardley v. State, 79 So. 362, 363; Howard State, 165 Ala. 18, 27, 50 So. 954. The order for the venire (erroneously contained in the record as first filed in this c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT