Holladay v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 394. |
| Citation | 101 So. 86,20 Ala.App. 76 |
| Parties | HOLLADAY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.
Will Holladay was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
L. D Gray, of Jasper, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
From a judgment of conviction for the offense of assault with intent to murder, carrying therewith an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment in the penitentiary of from four to seven years the defendant appealed.
There were numerous exceptions to the rulings of the court upon the admission of testimony. In the main these exceptions were reserved upon the theory of two separate and distinct transactions or difficulties between defendant and Osborne the alleged injured party. The position of appellant in this connection is not sustained by the evidence, for from a careful reading thereof it appears conclusively that the difficulty complained of was one continuous transaction there appearing no cessation of hostilities from the time the first shot was fired until the defendant had emptied his pistol after pursuing Osborne, the alleged injured party, for some considerable distance in the town of Hamilton, on the Sunday afternoon of the difficulty. The matters inquired about therefore related to the main transaction and were of the res gestæ of the offense, and the court properly so held in each of these rulings. The rulings of the court upon the testimony as a whole are so clearly free from any prejudicial error to defendant we will not discuss them in detail.
It does not appear that the defendant requested the court to give any special written charges. The exceptions to the oral charge are without merit as the court in a fair and impartial manner instructed the jury fully as to the several phases of the law governing, or applicable to, this case. The oral charge of the court must be taken as a whole, and in this case, when the oral charge is so taken and considered, no error of a prejudicial nature appears to injuriously affect the substantial rights of the defendant.
The motion for new trial was based upon several grounds, all of which, except grounds 3 and 4, appear without merit. But as to grounds 3 and 4 a serious question is presented. By the motion and the evidence introduced thereon, it is shown that this case was given to the jury at about 5:30 p. m. and that they had been out considering same until about 11 o'clock that night. Ground 3 of said motion sets up that at about 11 o'clock p. m. the jury, while deliberating on this case, were informed by the sheriff that he had no place for them to sleep, and the jury knew they would have to sit up all night unless they rendered a verdict, and it is insisted that this fact probably influenced the jury in returning the verdict in a short time after the alleged statement had been made.
Under ground 4 of the motion for new trial it is alleged that after the jury had deliberated in said cause from about 5:30 p. m., until about 11:30 p. m. the same day, and realizing that they would have to remain in the jury room or court room all night, without a place to sleep, unless a verdict was rendered, the court told the jury in substance that it was their duty to reach a verdict in said cause, and that they ought to do so, and defendant alleged that the foregoing facts did, or probably did, influence the said verdict of the jury.
In support of ground 3 of the motion, hereinabove set out, defendant offered the affidavit of Will Holladay, sworn to before the clerk of said court. The affidavit is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orr v. State
...Ins. Co. v. Moog, 81 Ala. 335, 1 So. 108, 115; De Jarnette v. Cox, 128 Ala. 518, 29 So. 618; Meadows v. State, supra; Holladay v. State, 20 Ala.App. 76, 101 So. 86; Gidley v. State, In the instant case, we have a conjunction of (1) a spontaneous communication by the court to the jury at the......
-
Houlton v. State
...17 Ala.App. 506, 86 So. 179; Lakey v. State, 18 Ala.App. 442, 93 So. 51; Taylor v. State, 18 Ala.App. 466, 93 So. 78; Holladay v. State, 20 Ala.App. 76, 101 So. 86.' The State introduced a witness, a man by the name of Pilgreen, by whom the State attempted to prove that the defendant purcha......
-
Strickland v. State
...jury to resume deliberations and to reach a verdict so long as the court does not use duress or coercion in doing so. Holladay v. State, 20 Ala.App. 76, 101 So. 86 (1924); Bufkins v. State, 20 Ala.App. 457, 103 So. 902 (1924). Threatening a jury with contempt for failure to return a verdict......
-
Bell v. State
...206 Ala. 439, 90 So. 687; Ballard v. State, 225 Ala. 202, 142 So. 668; Jones v. State, 21 Ala. App. 33, 104 So. 878; Holladay v. State, 20 Ala. App. 76, 101 So. 86; Weaver v. State, 17 Ala. App. 506, 86 So. The concluding questions presented by argument of counsel are exceptions to the oral......