Jackson v. State

• Decision Date: 10 July 1923
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 901.
• Citation: Jackson v. State, 19 Ala.App. 339, 97 So. 260 (Ala. App. 1923)
• Parties: JACKSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

97 So. 260

19 Ala.App. 339

JACKSON v. STATE.

7 Div. 901.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

July 10, 1923

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cleburne County; A. P. Agee, Judge.

Emory Jackson was convicted of assault and battery, and he appeals.Affirmed.

Tate &amp Logan, of Anniston, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD J.

The defendant was indicted jointly with his brother, Louis Jackson, on a charge of assault to murder one Walter Smith.On the trial Louis Jackson was acquitted and this defendant was convicted of an assault and battery.That being the casewe need not pass upon those portions of the court's general charge, to which exception was reserved, defining murder and assault to commit murder.The defendant having been acquitted of the charge of murder, these rulings, if erroneous, which we do not hold, were without injury to defendant.

The prosecution grew out of a difficulty between defendant and his brother on the one hand and Walter Smith on the other, in which knives were used pretty freely by all parties.Whatever the evidence may disclose as to who provoked or brought on the difficulty, or whether the defendants used excessive force, it must be conceded that Walter Smith was severely cut, from the effects of which he was confined to his bed for some days.Defendant objected and moved to exclude the testimony of the prosecutor that it was something like 10 days before he was able to "get out of the house" on account of the injuries received in the difficulty.In a prosecution for assault or assault to murder it is always relevant to show the extent of the wounds as being a part of the res gestæ, and the duration of recovery is also relevant as tending to prove the severity of the wounds inflicted.Holmes v. State(Ala. Sup.)39 So. 569.

Serious insistence is made that the court erred in refusing...