Jackson v. State

Decision Date25 January 1940
Docket Number6 Div. 544.
Citation193 So. 417,239 Ala. 38
PartiesJACKSON v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. Q. Smith, Judge.

Mack Jackson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

Lewey Robinson, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., Clarence M. Small, Asst. Atty. Gen and Geo. Lewis Bailes, Circuit Solicitor, and Burgin Hawkins Deputy Circuit Solicitor, both of Birmingham, for the State.

BOULDIN Justice.

"That the great, general, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare: * * * Sec. 6. That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to be heard by himself and counsel, or either." So reads the Declaration of Rights of Alabama, Article I, § 6.

This guaranty includes the right of the accused to have his case, as presented in the evidence, argued by counsel before the jury. To deny him this privilege is a denial of his constitutional rights. The trial court has no discretion so to do. Appellate courts have the responsibility, when presented for review, to determine whether this right has been denied or invaded by an unwarranted limitation of the time allowed for argument.

The trial court has, and must have, a measure of control over this as other features of the trial to the end that unnecessary time shall not be consumed, that the business of the court proceed with due dispatch, and without unnecessary expense.

This court has cautioned the trial courts, however, that impatience or other cause shall not lead to an infringement upon this constitutional right, whatever be the views of the court as to the merits of the defense.

In fixing a time limit for argument, he is in the exercise of a judicial discretion, subject to review on appeal.

This court, on such review, has the grave responsibility of protecting the constitutional rights of the accused, but according to the trial court a presumption that his discretion has not been abused.

The gravity of the charge, the volume of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the inferences to be drawn from the various phases of the evidence, and the legal principles involved, to be presented in instructions to the jury, are all matters within the proper scope of argument.

On appeal, this court looks to the record to determine these matters, and will not reverse unless it affirmatively appears there has been an abuse of discretion resulting in an infringement upon the constitutional right of the accused. Yeldell v. State, 100 Ala. 26, 14 So. 570, 46 Am.St.Rep. 20; Peagler et al. v. State, 110 Ala. 11, 20 So. 363; Crawford v. State, 112 Ala. 1, 21 So. 214; Waters v. State, 117 Ala. 108, 22 So. 490; Huskey v. State, 129 Ala. 94, 29 So. 838; 1 Thompson on Trials, §§ 923, 924, 925, 927.

In the case at bar the defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. His punishment was fixed at death.

The trial court limited the time for argument to thirty minutes on behalf of the state and thirty minutes on behalf of the defendant.

Cases heretofore considered by this court involved no such limitation of argument on behalf of the accused in a capital case.

Cases in other jurisdictions do not indicate such limitations have been frequent.

The interesting discussion in 1 Thompson on Trials, § 927, touching the limitation of argument by the Greeks, and their unique method of timing, as well as the famous case in which Cicero was limited to thirty minutes, serve to illustrate that limitation of argument has always been allowable, but is not to be highly regarded as a precedent for the time limit here imposed. We again caution the courts as in Yeldell v. State, supra, that in fixing such limitations regard must be had to the constitutional rights of the accused.

In the case for review, it is not disputed that the accused slew his common law wife in the room where they resided with their four year old boy; that death resulted from one or more blows with an axe handle, probably in the room for use as a poker. A compound fracture of the skull and other injuries were shown without dispute.

Defendant sought, through his own testimony only, to show another man had intruded into his home, that finding him there after some words, the intruder made a violent attack upon defendant with a knife, and in the fight which followed the deceased was struck unintentionally. Another phase would justify an argument, at least, that the fatal blow was struck from passion-heated blood in connection with this affair.

Defendant's counsel had the right to argue these issues. We are of opinion, however, that, on the whole, little time could be well consumed in such argument.

But, if simulated by the accused, in an effort to present a full defense, the question of the degree of the homicide and the measure of punishment were still within the bounds of legitimate argument.

Without elaborating details we think the gravest question for the solution of the jury was whether there was the positive intention to kill which is an essential element of murder in the first degree.

The evidence bearing on this...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • 45 593 Herring v. New York 8212 6587
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1975
    ...799, and Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (assistance of counsel). 8 See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 239 Ala. 38, 193 So. 417 (1940); Yeldell v. State, 100 Ala. 26, 14 So. 570 (1894); People v. Green, 99 Cal. 564, 34 P. 231 (1893); State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518 (......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 31, 1978
    ...in the absence of some abuse of that discretion, no error exists. Peterson v. State, 231 Ala. 625, 166 So. 20 (1936); Jackson v. State,239 Ala. 38, 193 So. 417 (1940); Stovall v. State, 18 Ala.App. 559, 93 So. 275 After careful examination we are satisfied that the two refused requested cha......
  • Hicks v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • July 12, 2019
    ...Chance was also examined by the prosecutor to ascertain that he had not been coached for his answers."In the case of Jackson v. State, 239 Ala. 38, 193 So. 417, Justice Bouldin observed, 'The exclusion of a witness having good sense, however tender the age, is disfavored because it would of......
  • Van Antwerp v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 7, 1978
    ...there has been an abuse of discretion resulting in an infringement upon the constitutional rights of the accused. Jackson v. State, 239 Ala. 38, 40, 193 So. 417 (1940). III It is argued that reversible error was committed when the state, in its cross examination of the appellant and a defen......
  • 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