Hyche v. State

Citation113 So. 644,22 Ala.App. 176
Decision Date30 June 1927
Docket Number6 Div. 256
PartiesHYCHE v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, 1927

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R.L. Blanton, Judge.

Rehearing denied; Rice, J., dissenting.

Lee Hyche was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

L.D Gray and J.B. Powell, both of Jasper, for appellant.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN P.J.

This appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree, and was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree his punishment being fixed by the jury at imprisonment in the penitentiary for twelve years. Judgment of conviction was duly pronounced and entered, from which this appeal was taken.

The appeal here is rested upon certain exceptions reserved to the rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence.

There appears but slight conflict in the evidence. That Jim, alias James, Tuggle, the deceased named in the indictment, was shot with a gun loaded with buckshot, and killed by this defendant, is not denied. Tuggle, the deceased, was a brother in-law of this defendant, and it clearly appears that for some years prior to the killing these parties were not on friendly terms.

It appears from the evidence that the deceased was seen by the defendant coming down the road in a two-mule wagon, about 100 yards from defendant's home; that thereupon defendant went into his house, procured his double barrel shotgun, one barrel of which could not be fired because of a broken or defective plunger; that he came out to the road and fired upon Tuggle, who fell to the ground at the first fire; that thereupon the defendant took the shell out of the useless barrel, loaded the other barrel with it, and, while the deceased was lying upon the ground as a result of the first shot, he shot him again, left the body in the road, and went to the sheriff some three and a half miles away, and gave up. There was one eyewitness to the second shot, one Tom Trice who testified for the state. But slight, if any, conflict appeared in the testimony given by this witness and the statement made by the defendant relative to the shooting. The defendant testified as to the particulars, and gave some evidence of an overt act upon the part of the deceased just prior to the shooting. He testified:

"He stated he (Tuggle) jumped out of the wagon and come running around the mules like, when he started he come around with his hand in his hip pocket, or behind his back; I didn't see any weapon."

Several exceptions were reserved to the court's rulings in permitting the state to prove by its several witnesses, who were the first parties to reach the body, that they made search for weapons near and on the body of deceased, and that they found nothing in the nature of a weapon except a small pocket-knife, and that was in the deceased's pocket, and was closed. All this was a proper inquiry, and the rulings were without error. The evidence sought and adduced tended to shed light upon the facts and circumstances of the killing, which was admitted. Its weight or probative force was for the jury.

The confessions of the accused were properly admitted, as full and ample predicates were laid, and it clearly appears that the confessions were wholly voluntary.

There was evidence of repeated threats against the defendant by the deceased and of mistreatment of the defendant by Tuggle upon several former occasions. The court allowed defendant much latitude in this connection, and, if error there was in the court's rulings, they were favorable to defendant, and he could not complain.

The controlling point of decision in this case, and manifestly the ruling upon which appellant relies principally for a reversal, is wherein the court permitted the state, over the timely objection of defendant, to introduce in evidence the coat and shirt which was worn by the deceased at the time he was shot. It is also insisted that the court erred in permitting these clothes to be taken into the jury room by the jury while they were deliberating upon this case. In this connection appellant cites several authorities--decisions from this court and the Supreme Court--but the case of Boyette v. State, 110 So. 812, appears to be relied upon as the main authority to sustain this insistence. In the Boyette Case Mr. Chief Justice Anderson for the court said:

"The trial court should not have permitted the introduction of the clothing of the deceased, as it shed no light whatever upon any material inquiry in the case, and was but the presentation of an unsightly spectacle calculated to prejudice the jury. There was no dispute as to the location of the wounds or the character of same on or about the head, and the bloody clothing of the deceased shed no light upon any controverted fact. The clothes worn by the deceased should never be offered in evidence unless they 'have some tendency to shed light upon some material inquiry.' "

We are of the opinion that this case must be differentiated from the Boyette Case; the location of the wounds in the Boyette Case were "on or about the head" of the deceased; therefore the clothes in question were not perforated or punctured by the bullets which took the life of deceased, and could shed no light upon the trial of the case. Here the evidence shows that the wounds upon Tuggle, deceased, were in the right and left sides of his body and arms, and the clothing introduced perforated by the shots which took his life. We think, therefore, that the perforated clothing of deceased was properly admitted as shedding light upon the character and location of wounds upon his body, and was cumulative of these facts and as being part of the transaction of the killing. We cannot construe the Boyette Case, supra, in the light that it was intended to overrule the decisions of the appellate courts of this state for the past 50 years. In Holley v. State, 75 Ala. 14, Chief Justice Brickell for the court said:

"On the trial of a defendant indicted for murder, the vest worn by the deceased at the time he was killed, and perforated by the shot, may be produced and exhibited to the jury."

In Watkins v. State, 89...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Barbour v. State, 6 Div. 522
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 7 Octubre 1954
    ...evidence, even upon a fact not disputed, is not prejudicial error.' Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, 347, 132 So. 711, 713; Hyche v. State, 22 Ala.App. 176, 113 So. 644, certiorari denied 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906; Pierce v. State, 28 Ala.App. 40, 178 So. The appellant insists that the admissi......
  • Kabase v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 16 Febrero 1943
    ...... course, unless the shoes tended to shed some light upon the. inquiry at issue, they were inadmissible. Husch v. State, 211 Ala. 274, 100 So. 321; Moore v. State,. Ala.App., 9 So.2d 146; Sikes v. State, 22. Ala.App. 33, 111 So. 760; Boyette v. State, 215 Ala. 472, 110 So. 812; Hyche v. State, 22 Ala.App. 176,. 113 So. 644. It was not shown that the heels of. [12 So.2d 763] . the shoes were lost or kicked off in her alleged struggle. with Ellis, nor, so far as appears from record, were the. heels found at the scene, nor was it made to appear that the. shoes were in any ......
  • Wilson v. State, 4 Div. 683.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 15 Diciembre 1942
    ...... evidence, and there was no dispute. It was a circumstance,. material, if cumulative. The admission of cumulative. evidence, even upon a fact not disputed, is not prejudicial. error." Weems v. State, 222 Ala. 346, 347, 132. So. 711, 713; Hyche v. State, 22 Ala.App. 176, 113. So. 644, certiorari denied 217 Ala. 114, 114 So. 906;. Pierce v. State, 28 Ala.App. 40, 178 So. 248. . . Under. the rule of the foregoing authorities, then, the photographs. were relevant and, even though portraying a gruesome. spectacle, were ......
  • McNutt v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • 5 Febrero 1929
    ...... which took the life of Pruitt, and thus under nearly all of. the decisions was admissible in evidence. Certainly so under. the rule laid down in Moye et al. v. State (Ala. App.) 117 So. 153. Certiorari denied Id., 217 Ala. 561,. 117 So. 154. But see Hyche v. State, 22 Ala. App. 176, 113 So. 644. . . The. remaining question on this appeal relates to the ruling of. the court which, in effect, held, as a matter of law, that. this appellant at the time of the killing complained. [121 So. 434.] . of was not within his dwelling house, ......
  • 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