Jackson v. State
| Citation | 22 Ala.App. 133,114 So. 68 |
| Decision Date | 24 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 150 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 21, 1927
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.
M.C Jackson was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Jackson v. State, 114 So 69.
Coleman D. Shepherd, of Jasper, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Curtis Pennington & Pou, of Jasper, for the State.
The defendant made a motion to "quash the indictment herein and the venire," because the sheriff served a summons on Eugene B. Hanby, who qualified as a juror, and the list of jurors served on defendant from which to select a jury contained the name of Eugene B. Handley. It was shown that these were one and the same. There is no merit in the motion for several reasons: (1) The motion is to quash both the indictment and the venire from which the jury to try the case was to be selected. Certainly a defect in this venire could not affect the indictment. (2) It was shown that Eugene B. Hanby and Eugene B. Handley were one and the same person. (3) The court offered to strike the name of Hanby from the list of jurors, if the defendant so requested, which the defendant declined to do, and then objected to being required to select a jury from the list including the name of Hanby. This was trifling with the court and cannot be permitted. (4) The number of names left after striking the name of Hanby were in excess of the number required by law.
The evidence for the state tended to prove that the deceased and three other boys were riding in a single-seated Ford car at night on the public highway; that three of the boys were riding in the single seat and deceased was riding on the top of the seat facing the rear; that the defendant flashed a light in the face of the driver, who did not stop, and as the car passed the defendant began shooting and one of the shots hit deceased, as a result of which he died. There was an effort made by defendant to prove that the boys in the car had some whisky and had taken a drink. This evidence was, of course, irrelevant. The defendant was a deputy sheriff, but this fact would not justify him in shooting deceased because he possessed whisky or had taken a drink, nor would it give the defendant the right to shoot into the car where he supposed whisky to be. The defendant, though an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frost v. State
...decided adversely to appellant's contention. We adhere to that ruling. Evans v. State, 209 Ala. 566, 96 So. 923; Jackson v. State, 22 Ala. App. 133, 114 So. 68. Nor there any error in the court's refusal to permit the defendant to challenge for cause the juror Jess Wilson. This juror was a ......
-
Freeman v. State
...248 Ala. 510, 28 So.2d 542; Savage v. State, 174 Ala. 94, 57 So. 469; Gordon v. State, 22 Ala.App. 214, 114 So. 279; Jackson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 133, 114 So. 68. See also, Title 30, Sec. 37, Code We do not see the necessity or need to go into a detailed delineation of the evidence. The qu......
-
Sandlin v. State
... ... remaining charges, were covered in the full, clear, and able ... charge of the trial judge. Moreover, it does not appear from ... the record as to whether these charges were requested by the ... state or the defendant, and therefore cannot be considered as ... a basis for reversal. Jackson v. State, 22 Ala. App ... 133, 114 So. 68; Jackson v. State, 216 Ala. 564, 114 ... On the ... cross-examination of defendant's witness L. C. (Shot) ... Jones, the state was permitted to prove that at the time ... witness went down to the place of the homicide he was ... "drinking." ... ...
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Meeks
...defendant. It could not, therefore, be considered as a basis for reversal. Sandlin v. State, 25 Ala.App. 311, 146 So. 82; Jackson v. State, 22 Ala.App. 133, 114 So. 68; Gorum v. Mott, 33 Ala.App. 525, 35 So.2d Assignment of error No. 5, to which we will not respond, is not argued in brief o......