Howerton v. State

Decision Date11 February 1915
Docket Number550
Citation191 Ala. 13,67 So. 979
PartiesHOWERTON v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; M. Sollie, Judge.

Sam Howerton was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

W.L Lee, of Columbia, D.C. Halstead, of Headland, and E.C Glover, of Abbeville, for appellant.

R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS J.

The real question presented by this appeal is the sufficiency of the verdict to support a sentence of conviction of murder in the first degree. The indictment charged:

"That before the finding of this indictment Sylvia Cummings and Sam Howerton unlawfully and with malice aforethought killed Alice Howerton by administering to her poison, to wit, strychnine, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama."

Defendant, Sam Howerton, demanded and was granted a severance. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty. On the trial the jury rendered a verdict of guilt as follows:

"We, the jury, find the defendant guilty and sentence him to the penitentiary for a term of his natural life."

The statutes of the state require this court to "consider all questions apparent on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions," and to "render such judgment as the law demands." Code 1907, § 6264. For 50 years it has been the law that when the jury find the defendant guilty under an indictment for murder, "they must ascertain, by their verdict, whether it is murder in the first or second degree," and if the defendant confesses his guilt on arraignment, the court must proceed "to determine the degree of the crime, by the verdict of a jury." Code 1907, § 7087; Clay's Digest, 412, 413, §§ 1, 2.

This court has uniformly held that no judgment of conviction, under an indictment for murder, can be sustained, unless the verdict of the jury expressly finds the degree of the crime of which the defendant is convicted. Cobia v. State, 16 Ala. 781; Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520, 524; Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70, 20 So. 103; Parham v. State, 147 Ala. 57, 68, South. 1; Gafford v. State, 125 Ala. 1, 9, 28 So. 406; Roberson v. State, 175 Ala. 15, 18, 57 So. 829. That the murder was committed by means of poison can make no difference. Johnson v State, 17 Ala. 618-627.

No error was committed by the court in ruling on the many objections and exceptions to evidence. It will subserve no good purpose to deal severally with them.

The two charges refused ignored the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Daniels v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 21, 1943
    ... ... to that furnished by the prosecution. In this case there were ... incriminating tendencies of evidence given by the defendant ... on cross examination. For this reason, there was no error in ... the refusal ... [11 So.2d 764.] ... of this charge. Howerton v. State, 191 Ala. 13, 67 ... In ... McCoy v. State, 170 Ala. 10, 54 So. 428, it was ... observed that charges may well be refused that have a ... tendency to lead the minds of the jury away from the direct ... evidence to a decision of the issue upon a consideration of ... the ... ...
  • Redus v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 18, 1942
    ...have carefully searched the whole record and find that appellant had a fair trial and that no reversible error intervened. Howerton v. State, 191 Ala. 13, 67 So. 979. judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. The date set for the execution of the sentence of the law on the defendant having......
  • Johnson v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1919
    ...then he would be guilty of murder in the first degree." The statute declares that every homicide perpetrated (1) by poison (Howerton v. State, 191 Ala. 13, 67 So. 979; Mitchell v. State, 60 Ala. 26, 28), or by lying wait (Patterson v. State, 191 Ala. 16, 67 So. 997, Ann.Cas. 1916C, 968), or......
  • Stone v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1922
    ...Davis v. State, 205 Ala. 673, 88 So. 868; McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387; Acts 1915, p. 815; Code, § 6264; Howerton v. State, 191 Ala. 13, 67 So. 979. It should be noted that there are questions, under the Act of 1915 (p. 815), as construed by this court, when an exception is ne......
  • 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