Hooks v. State
| Decision Date | 27 July 1893 |
| Parties | HOOKS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Elmore county; N. D. Denson, Judge.
Indictment against Thornton Hooks for murder. Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Reversed.
On the trial the testimony for the state tended to show that defendant cut the throat of deceased, and afterwards shot him with a gun. One of the witnesses for the state testified that on his coming to the deceased, who was then in a dying condition, the deceased said to him, "I am a dying man," and told the witness "that defendant shot and cut him for nothing, while he was trying to stop a difficulty between defendant and defendant's wife; that after he was cut he left defendant's house, and tried to go away; and that he traveled as far as he could, and, being weary and weak, sat down on a stump, and defendant came up while he was sitting there," and shot him, having previously cut him before he left defendant's house. The testimony for defendant tended to show that he came to his house, and, on walking up to the window, saw deceased and his (defendant's) wife just about to have sexual intercourse whereupon he jumped through the window, got his gun, and started for deceased; that deceased and defendant's wife ran out of the house; and that, in the scuffle and struggle that ensued, defendant cut the throat of the deceased, who ran from him, and defendant followed him, and shot him with the gun. The testimony for defendant further tended to corroborate the above testimony of defendant in his own behalf, by showing that a pallet was found in defendant's house, behind the door, upon which was spread the deceased's oilcloth coat, and that the deceased's hat was found in defendant's house immediately after the difficulty, and, further, by showing that there were signs and indications of a struggle in defendant's yard, about his house. Defendant requested the court to give the following written charges, and separately excepted to their refusal: (1) "If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant saw his wife and the deceased in such a position, one to the other, as to lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that they were about to commit adultery, and thereupon the defendant entered into a combat with deceased and before sufficient time had elapsed for the defendant's passion, aroused by such provocation, to cool, he killed the deceased, then the law tenderly regards a homicide thus committed, and makes it only manslaughter." (2) "If the jury find from the evidence that the conduct of the deceased, at the time the defendant entered into combat with him, was such as would provoke the defendant, then, in estimating the decree of provocation, they may look to the fact (if they find from the evidence that it is a fact) that the combat was had at the house of the defendant." (3) "If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant, to prevent the deceased committing adultery with his wife, entered into a combat with the deceased, and that at the time h...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knight v. State
...intercourse is a sufficient provocation, as a matter of law, to reduce the offense from murder to manslaughter." Hooks v. State, 99 Ala. 166, 168, 13 So. 767, 768 (1893). This principle was reaffirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court in Brunson v. State, 212 Ala. 571, 103 So. 664 However, in An......
-
Thomas v. State
...finds his wife committing adultery and under the provocation instantly takes her life, the homicide is only manslaughter." Hooks' Case, 99 Ala. 166, 13 So. 767; McNeill's Case, 102 Ala. 121, 15 So. 352, 48 Am. St. Rep. 17; Dabney's Case, 113 Ala. 38, 21 So. 211, 59 Am. St. Rep. 92; Williams......
-
Gafford v. State
...... both of them, it is a question for the jury whether the. provocation was sufficient to reduce the grade of the. offense, and whether he acted under the heat of sudden. passion, thereby excited, as in other cases of homicide under. the heat of passion excited by great provocation. Hooks. v. State, 99 Ala. 166, 13 So. 767; McNeill v. State, 102 Ala. 125, 15 So. 352; Dabney v. State, 113 Ala. 38, 21 So. 211. It will be observed that. these three cases do not contravene the doctrine as laid down. by Bishop, but simply do not require that it shall be. necessary that the ......
-
Jarvis v. State
...... charge of the court. Stillwell v. State, 107 Ala. 21, 19 So. 322; McNeill v. State, 102 Ala. 121, 15. So. 352, 48 Am. St. Rep. 17; Keiser v. Smith, 71. Ala. 481, 46 Am. Rep. 312; Felix v. State, 18 Ala. 720. We have not overlooked the case of Hooks v. State, 99 Ala. 166, 13 So. 767, relied upon by. appellant's counsel, where it is said in a dictum that. cooling time is a question of fact for the jury. This is. opposed to the cases cited above, and was in effect overruled. in McNeill's Case, supra. We must decline to follow it. . . ......