Hill v. State

• Citation: 156 Ala. 3,46 So. 864
• Parties: HILL v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 03 June 1908
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

46 So. 864

156 Ala. 3

HILL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 3, 1908

Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; D. W. Speake, Judge.

Will Hill was convicted of manslaughter, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court, as are the exceptions to the evidence. In his argument to the jury the solicitor said that defendant was guarded in his house by his neighbors after the shooting of deceased until the sheriff could arrive. Objection was interposed by defendant, which was overruled by the court. The following charges were also refused by the court:

"(10) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that a man's house is his castle, and he has the right to defend it or himself when in his house from an attack made or threatened by overt act, provided he is free from fault and the surrounding circumstances are such as to impress a reasonable man of the real or apparent danger of great bodily harm. He need not retreat, but may stand his ground and defend himself from said real or apparent danger to life or great bodily harm, even to the taking of life of his assailant."

"(13) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, if the evidence is evenly balanced, you should lean to the side of mercy, and decide in favor of the defendant."

"(16) If a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt exists or grows out of the evidence, or out of any conflicting statement made by the witnesses, if any in fact were made, which cannot be reconciled by you so as to make all the witnesses speak the truth under all the facts proven in this case, you must find the defendant not guilty.

"(17) Gentlemen of the jury, I charge that the state has offered no evidence showing that defendant's house was guarded so as to prevent his flight, and the argument of the said counsel to that effect was improper, and must not be considered by you."

Charge 18 is practically the same as 17.

"(19) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that you may take into consideration the fact, if it be a fact, in determining whether or not the defendant intended to have escaped, that the defendant could have escaped before the crowd congregated at his house.

"(20) I charge you, gentlemen of the jury, that you may take into consideration the fact, if it be a fact, that the defendant could have escaped before the crowd congregated at defendant's house, in determining from all the evidence whether or not the defendant intended to escape.

"(21) Gentlemen of the jury, there is no evidence before you that the defendant was convicted for cutting up a man some 18 or 20 years ago, and any statement of state's counsel to that effect was unwarranted by the evidence, and should not be considered by you in determining whether or not the defendant is guilty in this case.

"(22) Gentlemen of the jury, I further charge you that the law is, if you believe from all the evidence that the defendant was excited or scared, you may look to that evidence, together with all the other evidence in the case, in determining whether or not the shooting was excusable or justifiable.

"(23) By overt acts is meant any action or demonstration of deceased that was sufficient to create in the mind of a reasonable man under the same circumstances, or like circumstances, that the defendant was actually in danger of either real or apparent danger to either life or limb or great bodily harm, and it is the same in law even if no real danger in fact existed."

Application was made for a new trial, and overruled.

Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

The indictment against defendant was for manslaughter in the first degree, for the killing of one Mitchell; and he was accordingly convicted and sentenced.

The salient facts of the shooting, as given by Charlie Hill, who was present, and by defendant, himself, were, that some one beat upon the door of his house, and defendant said, "Who is that?" two or three times, and no one answered; that defendant got his gun, opened the door and asked "who it was," and no one answering, he shot deceased.

The defense was sought to be rested on the grounds, that defendant had a right to defend his house against unlawful invasion; that burglaries were being committed in the neighborhood, and being scared, he shot to protect himself against a supposed burglar. The sheriff, Wiggins, it appears, went to the house after the killing.

On the examination of C. Cook by the state, the defendant asked him "what, if anything, the defendant said in the house." The court sustained an objection interposed by the state...