Hicks v. State
| Decision Date | 09 February 1926 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 746 |
| Parties | HICKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 6, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; John McKinley, Judge.
Edwin R. Hicks was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals. Affirmed in part and remanded.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Hicks v. State, 108 So 614.
Altman & Taylor and Fred G. Koenig, all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The contention of appellant as to refused charge No. 1 is not sustained by the record. The court properly charged the jury as to what constitutes the "curtilage" of a dwelling. Madry v. State, 201 Ala. 512, 78 So. 866.
The trial judge in a careful and explicit manner charged the jury as to all the different degrees of homicide, as to self-defense under every phase in which it was presented, and as to the presumption of innocence and a reasonable doubt. Having done this the court gave at the request of defendant 39 charges emphasizing the defendant's contentions. There were only 12 written charges refused to defendant. Some of these refused charges have been expressly condemned by this court and the Supreme Court and none of them present any new or novel propositions of law. Where these charges state correct principles of law they are fully covered in the oral charge and the given charges.
Coming to a consideration of exceptions reserved to the admission of testimony, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon each specifically, many of them being of no merit and such as occur in the trial of hotly contested cases, where due deliberation and consideration in reserving exceptions is rarely the rule. When, however, these exceptions possess merit, this court will point out by specific ruling the law as it sees it, although this is sometimes rendered difficult by reason of a mass of exceptions of no merit whatever.
In a homicide case growing out of a mutual rencounter, the age, weight, height, and health of the parties engaged in the difficulty are relevant and proper inquiries to go to the jury that they may have with them, in considering their verdict, these facts, as affecting the acts and motives of the parties concerned.
At the time the witness Caulie Clayton was being examined, the place of residence of deceased was immaterial, as was also the relationship between deceased and his family. No connection between these facts and the issues in the case had been shown or were offered to be shown. All of those questions asked on cross-examination of state's witness seeking to show the relationship existing between deceased, his wife, and members of his family were res inter alios acta. To all of these questions objections by the state were properly sustained.
A map of the locus in quo and the surroundings was drawn on a blackboard and used by witnesses in connection with their testimony describing the place where the killing took place. That map is not in the record, and hence we are without the proper data which would enable us to pass intelligently upon all those exceptions involving location, distances, houses etc. We assume, therefore, that the map furnished sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court in his various rulings on the admission of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Peterson
...Commentaries 3-4 (1854 ed.); F. Wharton, Criminal Law & Procedure §§ 220-22, at 484-91 (Anderson ed. 1957). 95 E.g., Hicks v. State, 21 Ala.App. 335, 108 So. 612, 613, cert. denied, 214 Ala. 675, 108 So. 614 (1926); State v. Frizzelle, 243 N.C. 49, 89 S.E.2d 725, 726-727 (1955); State v. Br......
-
Nix v. State, 6 Div. 166.
...therefore was not required to retreat. Hill v. State, 194 Ala. 11, 69 So. 941, 2 A.L.R. 509; Jones v. State, 76 Ala. 8; Hicks v. State, 21 Ala.App. 335, 108 So. 612. immunity was overlooked by the trial judge in his charge to the jury. There remained in the self defense plea the element or ......
-
White v. State
...photographs and blackboard drawings from the appellate record precludes our review as to the sufficiency of the evidence. Hicks v. State, 21 Ala.App. 335, 108 So. 612; Arrick v. Fanning, 35 Ala.App. 409, 47 So.2d 708; Gilliam v. State, 38 Ala.App. 420, 89 So.2d 584; Graham v. State, Ala.App......
-
Skeggs v. State
... ... Justice Miller, for the Supreme ... Court, in the opinion in the case of Lambert v ... State, 208 Ala. 42, 93 So. 708, 710: "The size and ... physical condition [italics ours] of the defendant ... at the time of the fatal difficulty were relevant and ... competent." And see Hicks v. State, 21 Ala ... App. 335, 108 So. 612 ... It was ... error, and we think and hold prejudicial, to overrule ... appellant's objection to that portion of the argument of ... the solicitor, as follows: "I don't imagine Mr ... Wright was worth much money, because he was working ... ...